Saturday, September 29, 2018
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Update
History of Pakistan will be shifting to another domain after an indefinite time period. Due to Google's enforced change of blogspot's new and
more difficult layout, I will be forced to switch domains.
Readers will be notified here when this blog has been shifted with the link to the new blog page. The current posts from this blog page will also be found in the new blog. Also due to real life issues I cannot guarantee when this will happen. Apologies to readers for this inconvenience.
Readers will be notified here when this blog has been shifted with the link to the new blog page. The current posts from this blog page will also be found in the new blog. Also due to real life issues I cannot guarantee when this will happen. Apologies to readers for this inconvenience.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
The falsified myths of Greek and Macedonian roots of Northern Pakistani populations.
The Kalash and Hunza are amongst the fairest people in Pakistan. Even their hair can be blond, brown or red with blue or green eyes.
And because of their remote location, many of them still follow non-Muslim cults and spiritualities such as those derived from ancient Indo-European paganism. There are also few there who practice Shamanism.
Other spiritualities have died out or have been embedded into Islam such as Sufism.
Physical appearance evidence:
Because of their fair features and some of them retaining non-Muslim practices, many myths of their alleged "Greek" and "Macedonian" ancestry have arisen.
This myth may have started out as far back as the British Raj, but forgotten and later revived perhaps as recently as the mid 90s by missionaries from Greece and Macedonia.
Many recent documentaries and articles are made by Greek and Macedonian missionaries who go and pressure the Kalash and Hunza to accept descent from Alexander and his army.
They also offer financial aid in return for accepting the theories of their alleged Greek/Macedonian origins.
At other times, they manipulate these populations (sometimes even the Pakhtuns) into believing they are of Alexander's army. Part of this is due to the struggle between Greece and the modern country of "Macedonia" (better known as republic of Macedonia) to claim Alexander The Great as one of them.
And as already mentioned, because the Kalash and Hunza have certain traits mostly different from the rest of modern Pakistan, these have been used as a claim to declare them as "Greeks" or "Macedonians."
White features (light skin, hair, eyes etc.) are not a trait uncommon in Pakistan.
There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people from Pakistan with white skin (including those in my family) and features similar to Mediterranean peoples and some to central and Northern Europeans.
What is now uncommon, especially in modern times is Nordic features in Pakistan.
On the subject of of skin and hair colors, it should be noted that most Greek people have much darker hair and sometimes darker skin than the Kalash and Hunza.
In fact, many people from central and western Pakistan can be better compared in hair, eye and skin color to Greeks.
Here is a random picture of Greek people dancing:
Now compare them to Northern Pakistanis, mainly unmixed Kalash and Hunza pictures below. (click on images to enlarge)
White Northern Pakistani girl of unknown ethnicity:
Kalash:
Though many or most Kalash may look Mediterranean (unlike the pictures above), the reason behind that might be absorbing genes from other darker-skinned populations in the regions.
Percentage wise I would say the more pure unmixed Kalash have lighter skin and hair than modern Greeks.
I would say the same in the case of the Hunza. Take another example of this Greek man and compare him to some fairer Hunza:
Hunza:
Evidence of religion/spirituality:
Moving on to the religious past, most Pakistanis are blind to the history and practices of their ancient ancestors; hence they are often prone to Hindutva propaganda, which speaks of a "religion" called "Hinduism" being practiced in Pakistan (see meanings and origins of Hinduism) prior to Islam.
The blindness of Pakistanis to the history of their ancient ancestors is amplified by Wahhabi Islamists who teach them that their ancestors were victims of a caste system and practiced barbaric traditions. At other times they are taught that their ancestors were Arabs, Turks and Persian.
Actually the reality is far from the teachings of the Islamists.
The people of Pakistan, being primarily of Indo-European (IE) descent had ancestors who practiced various related IE cults and religions.
The same is the case for modern Europeans who have common ancestry with the people of Pakistan, especially Northern Pakistanis, who live in remote, mountainous locations and have absorbed much less non-Indo-European genes due to their isolation.
These common ancestors of Pakistanis and Europeans were called the Proto-Indo-Europeans.
A fact to note is that not all people who speak an IE language are descended from the Proto-Indo-Europeans.
The early IE people lived sometime around the fifth or sixth millennium BC. They had many pagan gods and symbols in their paganist cults/religions. To understand them better, readers should research ancient Indo-European culture, spirituality and mythology.
Some good resources for these are Internet sites such as this or books such as Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture.
After centuries of IE migration and the rise of major world religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam etc, the various related spiritualities of the IE people began to die out to these major world religions.
However, traces of these spiritualities and mythologies can still be found in various IE ethnic groups, which can be very similar to each other, establishing another common connection between IE peoples besides language.
Take for example the Greek sun pictured below:
Now compare it to the sun on the flag used by the Kurdish people:
As readers can see, these symbols are used by two peoples, Greeks and Kurds, both speaking IE languages.
The strong resemblance is not a coincidence as the two suns have a common source in IE mythology and culture.
In the case of the Kalash, their IE religion did not die out to Islam or any other due to their extremely remote location.
Anthropological and historical material claims their religion/cult to be a direct off-shoot of the original IE religion(s).
Because most of the people of Pakistan no longer practice IE culture or spirituality, some Greeks and Macedonians have tried to claim the Kalash peoples as their own.
Their methods seem to be by pointing to the common IE culture and spirituality of the Kalash to Greece and Macedonia's pre-Christian IE cultural and spiritual traits.
By this reasoning, the Greeks and Macedonians can also claim other IE practices and cultural traits to be from Alexander's armies.
Take for example Celtic culture or Zoroastrian culture.
Look at the sun in this Zoroastrian depiction below:
Does it not look similar to the Greek sun pictured further up in this post? Can Greeks and Macedonians now claim the Zoroastrian peoples in the region to be Alexander's descendants?
Or even the Kurds. Can the Kurds be claimed to be Alexander's descendants based on the common sun symbol between the Greeks/Macedonians and them?
The point I'm trying to make is that the culture and religion of the Kalash does not resemble pre-Christian Greek or Macedonian culture because the Kalash are an "off-shoot" of Alexander's army, but due to a common origin between the cultures of pre-Christian/Muslim/Buddhist etc. cultures and religions of IE peoples- including the pre-Islamic ancestors of most Pakistanis.
Linguistic evidence:
Greek and Macedonian are both IE languages. Greek is an isolated language in the IE family belonging to the Centum sect, while Macedonian is a Slavic language belonging to the Satem sect.
The language of the Kalash on the other hand belongs to the Dardic branch of IE. Linguists sometimes place Dardic as part of Indo-Aryan, but a distinct form of Indo-Aryan or "Northern Indo-Aryan."
To claim the Kalash as one of theirs, Greeks and Macedonians would have to explain how a Greek/Slavic speaking people, switched to Dardic. Some would possibly argue it is due to being surrounded by Dardic speaking populations.
Though I might be wrong, sources I've come across have indicated that language shift usually leaves traces of the previous language of an ethnic group in the new language that they have adopted.
Outside of a common Proto-Indo-European (PIE) source, can any traces of Slavic or Greek words be found in Kalashamondr? If so is it possible other Dardic languages such as Kashmiri or any other carry this?
Also on the subject of linguistics, why are the languages of the Chitral Valley (home of the Kalash) not written in Greek script or any script for that matter?
Their isolated position has protected their culture and spirituality, so surely their alleged "Greek" script could have been protected as well.
Even if not used in regular communication, why can't any Greek writing be found on their cultural items or tools used in regular life?
Genetic evidence:
According to sources, Haplogroup J2 is found primarily amongst Mediterranean populations, regardless of the linguistic diversity in that region.
Also according to this source, (don't know how reliable) certain subclades of Haplogroup J2 coincide with historic records of Greek colonization worldwide.
This makes sense. Since Pakistanis are predominantly members of Haplogroup R1, a subclade of Haplogroup R.
The only significant J2 markers found in Pakistan are in Pakhtunkhwa/NWFP, Punjab and parts of Sindh. This directly coincides with Greek colonization of Pakistan.
Even a Bangladeshi gentlemen who is an associate of mine is part Pakhtun. I've come across many Bangladeshis who are part Pakhtun including one person in my paternal family who has Pakhtun and Bengali roots from his mother's side.
That being mentioned, this associate of mine claims to have Greek ancestry from his Pakhtun side of the family- again coinciding with sources of Greek genetic influence in the Pakhtun population.
Had the Kalash or other Northern Pakistanis been of Greek descent, more significant markers of Haplogroup J2 would have been found in Northern Pakistan instead of being limited to mostly Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab.
Other evidence:
According to this site, Alexander the Great himself described light-skinned people in the Chitral Valley.
In the linked site, there is also a claim that Alexander encountered wooden boxes used by these peoples as coffins, which Alexander and his army used to burn wood.
This statement is also found in the book Empires of the Indus by Alice Albinia.
It states under a picture of these coffins that Alexander and his men found them and burned them for fire. This is possibly due to the fact that Northern Pakistan has cold climates even during the summer (I myself have been there in the summer and experienced the cold nights) because of the high altitude.
The Kalash are known to place their dead in wooden coffins which are then placed in the mountains.
This fact is also mentioned in Alice Albinia's book.
Alexander finding these wooden coffins and making a clear mention of white people in the Chitral Valley is more clear evidence of the Kalash and other Dardic peoples already being in this region much before his arrival. Historians and anthropologists estimate the first Aryan invasions in the subcontinent happened around 1700 to 1500 BC, well over a thousand years before Alexander's invasion which occurred in the third century BC.
Concealing their dead in wooden coffins might be a tradition the Kalash also inherited from Proto-Indo-European/"Kurgan culture" though I can't be certain until I further research this tradition.
Additional evidence going against the "Alexander's descendants" theory are the lack of Greek/Macedonian artifacts found in the culture of the Kalash. Take for example this coin pictured below followed by a head bust. Both were supposedly used during the Gandharran Civilization following Alexander's conquest:
To all my knowledge, no such artifacts or inscriptions are found in the cultural objects of the Kalash.
No known inscriptions of Greek heroes on their pottery or Greek gods in their places of worship.
Readers reading this post will have noticed that I have not made much mention of the Hunza.
The reason is because there is even little the Greeks or Macedonians can provide for their supposed "connection" to the Hunza especially on linguistic grounds.
The language of the Hunza, Burushaski is a language isolate and bears no known genetic relationship to any other language on Earth.
In fact most of Pakistan's languages which are Indo-European have much more in common with Greek and Macedonian than Burushaski does.
Even DNA tests carried out in 2008 show no link between the Hunza and the Macedonians. The origins of the Hunza are shrouded in mystery and no written records of their language exist. Some Tibetan sources mention this language, but written in local Tibetan languages.
The proposed Na-Dene Caucasian family had included the Burushaski language as one of it's members. But according to some websites, further research excludes this language from the proposed family.
Most Greek and Macedonian claims over these people would not be taken seriously, especially based on the facts I have posted above. And even if they were taken seriously, questions would then later arise on the validity of these claims.
Some last notes:
I would like to apologize to any Greeks and Macedonians reading this post. I understand that not all people from Greece and Macedonia claim Northern Pakistani populations as Alexander's descendants.
It's also a noticeable fact that many peoples in Pakistan and third world countries like to claim ancestries which has little or nothing to do with them.
Such as Pakistanis claiming Arab or Mughal ancestry with little evidence on the basis of feeling 'more Muslim.'
Other people do it sometimes because they are manipulated to do so such as some Kashmiris, Pakhtuns and Balochis claiming Jewish or other Semitic ancestries, which shall be discussed in another post.
There are even others sometimes paid to speak in favor of accepting a foreign nation's claim over their ethnicity.
Knowing the poverty in Pakistan, it should hardly be surprising that some individuals would accept bribes into accepting these claims.
The best way to counter such claims is with counter claims backed by evidence and facts. The truth and knowledge are the most powerful tools in winning arguments. Always.
And because of their remote location, many of them still follow non-Muslim cults and spiritualities such as those derived from ancient Indo-European paganism. There are also few there who practice Shamanism.
Other spiritualities have died out or have been embedded into Islam such as Sufism.
Physical appearance evidence:
Because of their fair features and some of them retaining non-Muslim practices, many myths of their alleged "Greek" and "Macedonian" ancestry have arisen.
This myth may have started out as far back as the British Raj, but forgotten and later revived perhaps as recently as the mid 90s by missionaries from Greece and Macedonia.
Many recent documentaries and articles are made by Greek and Macedonian missionaries who go and pressure the Kalash and Hunza to accept descent from Alexander and his army.
They also offer financial aid in return for accepting the theories of their alleged Greek/Macedonian origins.
At other times, they manipulate these populations (sometimes even the Pakhtuns) into believing they are of Alexander's army. Part of this is due to the struggle between Greece and the modern country of "Macedonia" (better known as republic of Macedonia) to claim Alexander The Great as one of them.
And as already mentioned, because the Kalash and Hunza have certain traits mostly different from the rest of modern Pakistan, these have been used as a claim to declare them as "Greeks" or "Macedonians."
White features (light skin, hair, eyes etc.) are not a trait uncommon in Pakistan.
There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people from Pakistan with white skin (including those in my family) and features similar to Mediterranean peoples and some to central and Northern Europeans.
What is now uncommon, especially in modern times is Nordic features in Pakistan.
On the subject of of skin and hair colors, it should be noted that most Greek people have much darker hair and sometimes darker skin than the Kalash and Hunza.
In fact, many people from central and western Pakistan can be better compared in hair, eye and skin color to Greeks.
Here is a random picture of Greek people dancing:
Now compare them to Northern Pakistanis, mainly unmixed Kalash and Hunza pictures below. (click on images to enlarge)
White Northern Pakistani girl of unknown ethnicity:
Kalash:
Though many or most Kalash may look Mediterranean (unlike the pictures above), the reason behind that might be absorbing genes from other darker-skinned populations in the regions.
Percentage wise I would say the more pure unmixed Kalash have lighter skin and hair than modern Greeks.
I would say the same in the case of the Hunza. Take another example of this Greek man and compare him to some fairer Hunza:
Hunza:
Evidence of religion/spirituality:
Moving on to the religious past, most Pakistanis are blind to the history and practices of their ancient ancestors; hence they are often prone to Hindutva propaganda, which speaks of a "religion" called "Hinduism" being practiced in Pakistan (see meanings and origins of Hinduism) prior to Islam.
The blindness of Pakistanis to the history of their ancient ancestors is amplified by Wahhabi Islamists who teach them that their ancestors were victims of a caste system and practiced barbaric traditions. At other times they are taught that their ancestors were Arabs, Turks and Persian.
Actually the reality is far from the teachings of the Islamists.
The people of Pakistan, being primarily of Indo-European (IE) descent had ancestors who practiced various related IE cults and religions.
The same is the case for modern Europeans who have common ancestry with the people of Pakistan, especially Northern Pakistanis, who live in remote, mountainous locations and have absorbed much less non-Indo-European genes due to their isolation.
These common ancestors of Pakistanis and Europeans were called the Proto-Indo-Europeans.
A fact to note is that not all people who speak an IE language are descended from the Proto-Indo-Europeans.
The early IE people lived sometime around the fifth or sixth millennium BC. They had many pagan gods and symbols in their paganist cults/religions. To understand them better, readers should research ancient Indo-European culture, spirituality and mythology.
Some good resources for these are Internet sites such as this or books such as Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture.
After centuries of IE migration and the rise of major world religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam etc, the various related spiritualities of the IE people began to die out to these major world religions.
However, traces of these spiritualities and mythologies can still be found in various IE ethnic groups, which can be very similar to each other, establishing another common connection between IE peoples besides language.
Take for example the Greek sun pictured below:
Now compare it to the sun on the flag used by the Kurdish people:
As readers can see, these symbols are used by two peoples, Greeks and Kurds, both speaking IE languages.
The strong resemblance is not a coincidence as the two suns have a common source in IE mythology and culture.
In the case of the Kalash, their IE religion did not die out to Islam or any other due to their extremely remote location.
Anthropological and historical material claims their religion/cult to be a direct off-shoot of the original IE religion(s).
Because most of the people of Pakistan no longer practice IE culture or spirituality, some Greeks and Macedonians have tried to claim the Kalash peoples as their own.
Their methods seem to be by pointing to the common IE culture and spirituality of the Kalash to Greece and Macedonia's pre-Christian IE cultural and spiritual traits.
By this reasoning, the Greeks and Macedonians can also claim other IE practices and cultural traits to be from Alexander's armies.
Take for example Celtic culture or Zoroastrian culture.
Look at the sun in this Zoroastrian depiction below:
Does it not look similar to the Greek sun pictured further up in this post? Can Greeks and Macedonians now claim the Zoroastrian peoples in the region to be Alexander's descendants?
Or even the Kurds. Can the Kurds be claimed to be Alexander's descendants based on the common sun symbol between the Greeks/Macedonians and them?
The point I'm trying to make is that the culture and religion of the Kalash does not resemble pre-Christian Greek or Macedonian culture because the Kalash are an "off-shoot" of Alexander's army, but due to a common origin between the cultures of pre-Christian/Muslim/Buddhist etc. cultures and religions of IE peoples- including the pre-Islamic ancestors of most Pakistanis.
Linguistic evidence:
Greek and Macedonian are both IE languages. Greek is an isolated language in the IE family belonging to the Centum sect, while Macedonian is a Slavic language belonging to the Satem sect.
The language of the Kalash on the other hand belongs to the Dardic branch of IE. Linguists sometimes place Dardic as part of Indo-Aryan, but a distinct form of Indo-Aryan or "Northern Indo-Aryan."
To claim the Kalash as one of theirs, Greeks and Macedonians would have to explain how a Greek/Slavic speaking people, switched to Dardic. Some would possibly argue it is due to being surrounded by Dardic speaking populations.
Though I might be wrong, sources I've come across have indicated that language shift usually leaves traces of the previous language of an ethnic group in the new language that they have adopted.
Outside of a common Proto-Indo-European (PIE) source, can any traces of Slavic or Greek words be found in Kalashamondr? If so is it possible other Dardic languages such as Kashmiri or any other carry this?
Also on the subject of linguistics, why are the languages of the Chitral Valley (home of the Kalash) not written in Greek script or any script for that matter?
Their isolated position has protected their culture and spirituality, so surely their alleged "Greek" script could have been protected as well.
Even if not used in regular communication, why can't any Greek writing be found on their cultural items or tools used in regular life?
Genetic evidence:
According to sources, Haplogroup J2 is found primarily amongst Mediterranean populations, regardless of the linguistic diversity in that region.
Also according to this source, (don't know how reliable) certain subclades of Haplogroup J2 coincide with historic records of Greek colonization worldwide.
This makes sense. Since Pakistanis are predominantly members of Haplogroup R1, a subclade of Haplogroup R.
The only significant J2 markers found in Pakistan are in Pakhtunkhwa/NWFP, Punjab and parts of Sindh. This directly coincides with Greek colonization of Pakistan.
Even a Bangladeshi gentlemen who is an associate of mine is part Pakhtun. I've come across many Bangladeshis who are part Pakhtun including one person in my paternal family who has Pakhtun and Bengali roots from his mother's side.
That being mentioned, this associate of mine claims to have Greek ancestry from his Pakhtun side of the family- again coinciding with sources of Greek genetic influence in the Pakhtun population.
Had the Kalash or other Northern Pakistanis been of Greek descent, more significant markers of Haplogroup J2 would have been found in Northern Pakistan instead of being limited to mostly Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab.
Other evidence:
According to this site, Alexander the Great himself described light-skinned people in the Chitral Valley.
In the linked site, there is also a claim that Alexander encountered wooden boxes used by these peoples as coffins, which Alexander and his army used to burn wood.
This statement is also found in the book Empires of the Indus by Alice Albinia.
It states under a picture of these coffins that Alexander and his men found them and burned them for fire. This is possibly due to the fact that Northern Pakistan has cold climates even during the summer (I myself have been there in the summer and experienced the cold nights) because of the high altitude.
The Kalash are known to place their dead in wooden coffins which are then placed in the mountains.
This fact is also mentioned in Alice Albinia's book.
Alexander finding these wooden coffins and making a clear mention of white people in the Chitral Valley is more clear evidence of the Kalash and other Dardic peoples already being in this region much before his arrival. Historians and anthropologists estimate the first Aryan invasions in the subcontinent happened around 1700 to 1500 BC, well over a thousand years before Alexander's invasion which occurred in the third century BC.
Concealing their dead in wooden coffins might be a tradition the Kalash also inherited from Proto-Indo-European/"Kurgan culture" though I can't be certain until I further research this tradition.
Additional evidence going against the "Alexander's descendants" theory are the lack of Greek/Macedonian artifacts found in the culture of the Kalash. Take for example this coin pictured below followed by a head bust. Both were supposedly used during the Gandharran Civilization following Alexander's conquest:
No known inscriptions of Greek heroes on their pottery or Greek gods in their places of worship.
Readers reading this post will have noticed that I have not made much mention of the Hunza.
The reason is because there is even little the Greeks or Macedonians can provide for their supposed "connection" to the Hunza especially on linguistic grounds.
The language of the Hunza, Burushaski is a language isolate and bears no known genetic relationship to any other language on Earth.
In fact most of Pakistan's languages which are Indo-European have much more in common with Greek and Macedonian than Burushaski does.
Even DNA tests carried out in 2008 show no link between the Hunza and the Macedonians. The origins of the Hunza are shrouded in mystery and no written records of their language exist. Some Tibetan sources mention this language, but written in local Tibetan languages.
The proposed Na-Dene Caucasian family had included the Burushaski language as one of it's members. But according to some websites, further research excludes this language from the proposed family.
Most Greek and Macedonian claims over these people would not be taken seriously, especially based on the facts I have posted above. And even if they were taken seriously, questions would then later arise on the validity of these claims.
Some last notes:
I would like to apologize to any Greeks and Macedonians reading this post. I understand that not all people from Greece and Macedonia claim Northern Pakistani populations as Alexander's descendants.
It's also a noticeable fact that many peoples in Pakistan and third world countries like to claim ancestries which has little or nothing to do with them.
Such as Pakistanis claiming Arab or Mughal ancestry with little evidence on the basis of feeling 'more Muslim.'
Other people do it sometimes because they are manipulated to do so such as some Kashmiris, Pakhtuns and Balochis claiming Jewish or other Semitic ancestries, which shall be discussed in another post.
There are even others sometimes paid to speak in favor of accepting a foreign nation's claim over their ethnicity.
Knowing the poverty in Pakistan, it should hardly be surprising that some individuals would accept bribes into accepting these claims.
The best way to counter such claims is with counter claims backed by evidence and facts. The truth and knowledge are the most powerful tools in winning arguments. Always.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Are Indians and Pakistanis the same people?
We often do hear Indians and Muhajirs chanting that Indians and Pakistanis are the same people and there's absolutely no difference between the two.
Some go as far to say that the people of the subcontinent are all "exactly the same" divided by political boundaries.
People who normally chant this draw out ignorant statements or try to convince everyone by chanting the same statement over and over again to the point that people stop questioning it.
I want to touch on the most common arguments that have been made in favor of this idea.
Appearance:
This argument is that Indians and Pakistanis are often mistaken for the same by outsiders and that's "proof" of their supposed "common origin." But then again Pakistanis are often lumped up with Arabs and other Middle Eastern peoples. When I moved to North America, people took me for an Arab. Does that make me an Arab? Does it mean Pakistanis have common origins with Arabs?
The same can be stated for Indians. What's more is only a small minority of people living in Northwestern India resemble Pakistanis when it comes to appearance. Other Indians sometimes look like exact opposites of Northern Pakistanis in terms of appearance. Northern Pakistanis are often tall, of fair complexion resembling Europeans while people from other parts of India often show East Asian or Australoid features with dark skin.
Also, there are "Indians" who are actually people who migrated from Pakistan during independence in 1947 and share common genetics, culture, linguistics with the rest of Pakistan, not with their adopted country.
Demographics:
Another common argument is that due to the shared provinces of Punjab and Kashmir, the two populations are "the same."
One problem is that Kashmir is not recognized as an "Indian state" by Pakistan or the United Nations. It is currently disputed territory and often seen as the fifth province of Pakistan. Only India sees Kashmir as an Indian state.
Neither do the people belong to the common North Indian haplogroup of R2 and it's possible subclades.
In fact Kashmiris are amongst the highest carriers of R1A in Asia, lumping them closer to Eastern European populations than Indian ones.
The other problem is that it is only Punjab that is split between India and Pakistan. The other provinces and populations are not shared by India and Pakistan. Even the populations in these unshared provinces between the two countries are completely distinct.
The major ethnic groups Balochis, Pakhtuns, Sindhis, Kashmiris and other populations of Pakistan are completely different from Indian populations and are not found in India except for some who migrated.
Pakistan also shares some of these mentioned ethnicities with Iran and Afghanistan, yet few have argued in favor of lumping Iran or Afghanistan with Pakistan.
Likewise the many dozens of ethnic groups from Tamils, Bengalis, Rajesthanis, Orissans, Telagu, Kannadas and many others are not found in Pakistan.
Even the various populations of India have little in common with one another.
India itself is so diverse that even the existence of a single "Indian" culture, language or people is not there. India can be compared to the former USSR, while Pakistan can be better compared to Yugoslavia or Switzerland, a home of various distinct, but related cultures and peoples.
Linguistics:
Some shared languages between the two countries especially Hindustani (mostly today called Hindi and Urdu) which is the lingua franca of the subcontinent is used as a basis to argue the "oneness" of Indians and Pakistanis.
Many countries share common languages for various reasons. The Hindustani language developed due to Mughal rulers of the subcontinent who were neither Indian nor Pakistani by origin.
Other shared languages such as Sindhi are due to migration between the two countries.
English is another language often used as a language of business in the two countries and also a legacy of British rule. Does this make the two peoples "one?"
Iran and Iraq have shared languages and demographics of Kurdish, Arab and Turkic populations. No one bothers to term them "one."
Most languages spoken in India are not spoken or understood in Pakistan and vice versa. Most of Pakistan's languages except for Brahui, Burusho and Baltistani are of Indo-European origins.
India's languages on the other hand are around seventy percent Indo-European and the other thirty percent being Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan, Austro-Asiatic and some other language isolates.
Genetics:
This is probably the strongest argument debunking Pan-South Asian propaganda. Most often, cheerleaders of Indo-Pakistani 'commonality' do not wish to back up their claims with evidence and will rely only on repeating their statements to win agreement.
If one is to search the distributions of haplogroups in the two countries, there is little in common. Even the common Indo-European haplogroup R found in Pakistanis and Northwestern Indians breaks into haplogroup R1A and R2 (sometimes also refereed to as R1B2).
This places Pakistani populations; especially Northern Pakistanis into closer genetic lineages with Eastern European populations than to Indian ones.
Also knowing the fair appearance of Northern Pakistanis and their Indo-European languages, this should hardly be surprising. But even still, it does not make them "the same" as East Europeans, because comparing the two in the 21st century based on ancient links is absurd.
So if they cannot be compared to those people, why would the diverse Indians, most of which are not related be compared to them?
It is also not just the differing distributions of haplogroup R but also various other haplogroups common to India but not to Pakistan. Most Indian haplogroups are not even found in Pakistan.
The haplogroup maps below give us a brief insight: (click to enlarge)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Though the videos below are not exactly accurate in genetics and wrongly calls Indo-Iranic "Indo-Iranian" as well as using the pseudo-anthropological word "desi" and also incorrectly referring to India as "Hindustan," they are still mostly factual and detailed otherwise:
Some go as far to say that the people of the subcontinent are all "exactly the same" divided by political boundaries.
People who normally chant this draw out ignorant statements or try to convince everyone by chanting the same statement over and over again to the point that people stop questioning it.
I want to touch on the most common arguments that have been made in favor of this idea.
Appearance:
This argument is that Indians and Pakistanis are often mistaken for the same by outsiders and that's "proof" of their supposed "common origin." But then again Pakistanis are often lumped up with Arabs and other Middle Eastern peoples. When I moved to North America, people took me for an Arab. Does that make me an Arab? Does it mean Pakistanis have common origins with Arabs?
The same can be stated for Indians. What's more is only a small minority of people living in Northwestern India resemble Pakistanis when it comes to appearance. Other Indians sometimes look like exact opposites of Northern Pakistanis in terms of appearance. Northern Pakistanis are often tall, of fair complexion resembling Europeans while people from other parts of India often show East Asian or Australoid features with dark skin.
Also, there are "Indians" who are actually people who migrated from Pakistan during independence in 1947 and share common genetics, culture, linguistics with the rest of Pakistan, not with their adopted country.
Demographics:
Another common argument is that due to the shared provinces of Punjab and Kashmir, the two populations are "the same."
One problem is that Kashmir is not recognized as an "Indian state" by Pakistan or the United Nations. It is currently disputed territory and often seen as the fifth province of Pakistan. Only India sees Kashmir as an Indian state.
Neither do the people belong to the common North Indian haplogroup of R2 and it's possible subclades.
In fact Kashmiris are amongst the highest carriers of R1A in Asia, lumping them closer to Eastern European populations than Indian ones.
The other problem is that it is only Punjab that is split between India and Pakistan. The other provinces and populations are not shared by India and Pakistan. Even the populations in these unshared provinces between the two countries are completely distinct.
The major ethnic groups Balochis, Pakhtuns, Sindhis, Kashmiris and other populations of Pakistan are completely different from Indian populations and are not found in India except for some who migrated.
Pakistan also shares some of these mentioned ethnicities with Iran and Afghanistan, yet few have argued in favor of lumping Iran or Afghanistan with Pakistan.
Likewise the many dozens of ethnic groups from Tamils, Bengalis, Rajesthanis, Orissans, Telagu, Kannadas and many others are not found in Pakistan.
Even the various populations of India have little in common with one another.
India itself is so diverse that even the existence of a single "Indian" culture, language or people is not there. India can be compared to the former USSR, while Pakistan can be better compared to Yugoslavia or Switzerland, a home of various distinct, but related cultures and peoples.
Linguistics:
Some shared languages between the two countries especially Hindustani (mostly today called Hindi and Urdu) which is the lingua franca of the subcontinent is used as a basis to argue the "oneness" of Indians and Pakistanis.
Many countries share common languages for various reasons. The Hindustani language developed due to Mughal rulers of the subcontinent who were neither Indian nor Pakistani by origin.
Other shared languages such as Sindhi are due to migration between the two countries.
English is another language often used as a language of business in the two countries and also a legacy of British rule. Does this make the two peoples "one?"
Iran and Iraq have shared languages and demographics of Kurdish, Arab and Turkic populations. No one bothers to term them "one."
Most languages spoken in India are not spoken or understood in Pakistan and vice versa. Most of Pakistan's languages except for Brahui, Burusho and Baltistani are of Indo-European origins.
India's languages on the other hand are around seventy percent Indo-European and the other thirty percent being Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan, Austro-Asiatic and some other language isolates.
Genetics:
This is probably the strongest argument debunking Pan-South Asian propaganda. Most often, cheerleaders of Indo-Pakistani 'commonality' do not wish to back up their claims with evidence and will rely only on repeating their statements to win agreement.
If one is to search the distributions of haplogroups in the two countries, there is little in common. Even the common Indo-European haplogroup R found in Pakistanis and Northwestern Indians breaks into haplogroup R1A and R2 (sometimes also refereed to as R1B2).
This places Pakistani populations; especially Northern Pakistanis into closer genetic lineages with Eastern European populations than to Indian ones.
Also knowing the fair appearance of Northern Pakistanis and their Indo-European languages, this should hardly be surprising. But even still, it does not make them "the same" as East Europeans, because comparing the two in the 21st century based on ancient links is absurd.
So if they cannot be compared to those people, why would the diverse Indians, most of which are not related be compared to them?
It is also not just the differing distributions of haplogroup R but also various other haplogroups common to India but not to Pakistan. Most Indian haplogroups are not even found in Pakistan.
The haplogroup maps below give us a brief insight: (click to enlarge)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Though the videos below are not exactly accurate in genetics and wrongly calls Indo-Iranic "Indo-Iranian" as well as using the pseudo-anthropological word "desi" and also incorrectly referring to India as "Hindustan," they are still mostly factual and detailed otherwise:
Monday, March 29, 2010
The "Muhajirs" in Pakistan and their diverse backgrounds.
Many in Pakistan think of Urdu-speaking people originally from the state of Utter Pradesh in present-day North India when they think of Muhajirs.
Actually what most people might not know is that the state of Utter Pradesh was manufactured by the British in the 1930s.
What most people also do not know is that most "Muhajirs" are not a common ethnicity but various peoples from different parts of the subcontinent. The only common trait they have is the common Hindustani language which is no the Lingua Franca of the subcontinent.
This does not mean their natives languages were Lashkari ('Urdu') or whatever you may call it.
I have met "Muhajirs" who trace their roots back to Bengal, South India and other part of the subcontinent. Most of them don't even know a word of Bengali or other languages of their parents.
I even met a person at a hospital who claimed he had a Tamil Muslim friend who's family migrated to Pakistan.
Even in her book Empires of the Indus, the British author Alice Albina writes that during independence, some forty four thousand immigrants from all over India migrated to Pakistan.
This information can be found in her book on page sixteen paragraph two. "Some forty four thousand Muslims government employees- tea boys and peons, civil servants and politicians; and their spouses, parents and children- took the train from all over India and came to Pakistan. Naturally, they hollered for housing, they camped in Karachi's school, they filled up its lovely green spaces with their clamorous existence."
Imagine these immigrants and their descendants now. Their numbers must have increased dramatically to millions knowing Karachi's massive population. To know the history of the "Muhajirs" and their presence in Pakistan, each ethnicity of a Muhajir family and their background must be investigated.
For decades "Muhajirs" have been lumped as a whole on the basis of a common first language they speak today. The purpose of this post is to show that is clearly not the case and that "Muhajirs" are from various backgrounds, both Indian and Non-Indian alike.
Actually what most people might not know is that the state of Utter Pradesh was manufactured by the British in the 1930s.
What most people also do not know is that most "Muhajirs" are not a common ethnicity but various peoples from different parts of the subcontinent. The only common trait they have is the common Hindustani language which is no the Lingua Franca of the subcontinent.
This does not mean their natives languages were Lashkari ('Urdu') or whatever you may call it.
I have met "Muhajirs" who trace their roots back to Bengal, South India and other part of the subcontinent. Most of them don't even know a word of Bengali or other languages of their parents.
I even met a person at a hospital who claimed he had a Tamil Muslim friend who's family migrated to Pakistan.
Even in her book Empires of the Indus, the British author Alice Albina writes that during independence, some forty four thousand immigrants from all over India migrated to Pakistan.
This information can be found in her book on page sixteen paragraph two. "Some forty four thousand Muslims government employees- tea boys and peons, civil servants and politicians; and their spouses, parents and children- took the train from all over India and came to Pakistan. Naturally, they hollered for housing, they camped in Karachi's school, they filled up its lovely green spaces with their clamorous existence."
Imagine these immigrants and their descendants now. Their numbers must have increased dramatically to millions knowing Karachi's massive population. To know the history of the "Muhajirs" and their presence in Pakistan, each ethnicity of a Muhajir family and their background must be investigated.
For decades "Muhajirs" have been lumped as a whole on the basis of a common first language they speak today. The purpose of this post is to show that is clearly not the case and that "Muhajirs" are from various backgrounds, both Indian and Non-Indian alike.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Where and what is Hindustan?
Many modern-day people seem to think of Hindustan as a synonym for the country India. This is an incorrect understanding of the word and the history behind it. Even the understanding of Hindustan as "land of Hindus" is a misconception.
Other people think of this as a regional term for the whole subcontinent. According to geographers and historians, the region of Hindustan covers the Ganges valley in Northern India and the Punjab and Sindh regions of Eastern Pakistan. It also includes Rajesthan and the Delhi region and perhaps parts of China which touches points of the Indus river.
It does not refer to the entire subcontinent, let alone all of India.
According to my knowledge, the word was used by the Mughals for the territories they controlled in South Asia, which was mostly North India, North Eastern Pakistan and Bangladesh.
The word Hindustan most likely has it's roots in Hind, which in term is a corruption of the word Sindh, from the Sanskrit Sindhu which came from "Sapta Sindhu" meaning "land of the rivers."
Sapta Sindhu or the land of the rivers included the river-covered areas of eastern Pakistan and northwestern India.
The Persians who frequently visited the subcontinent through out the centuries, referred to the region as "Hind." This word was most likely a synonym for Sindhu.
For those who do not know, the Mughals were a mostly Persian-led empire with an army of Turko-Mongols. But this army was one of many Persian armies that visited South Asia going back centuries before the common era.
If Hind had the same meaning behind Sindh, then being a Persian led force, the Mughals continued to use the word Hind to refer to the region of rivers in South Asia as their ancestors did, which was mostly the Ganges Valley in Northern India and the Indus Valley in central and eastern Pakistan.
If these theories are correct, it coincides with the original marking of Hindustan which cuts through North India and North Eastern Pakistan. The Mughal word Hindustan could very well be a continuation of the word Hind.
Below is the map of the territories controlled by the Mughal Empire:
Another misconception is that Hindustan had a religious meaning. This is not true at all. As already known to many, the reference to "Hindu" and "Hinduism" as a collective religion did not exist until the arrival of the British who termed all the indigenous religions of South Asia as "one."
If Hind had the same meaning as "Sindh" then Hindustan would also mean "land of the rivers" which makes sense, since the area of Punjab and the Ganges valley was rules by the Mughals.
Sindh was not under Mughal rule as far as any sources state , nor do any maps show most of Pakistan being under Mughal rule.
Conclusively, the correct meaning of Hindustan is the region that cuts through Northern India and North Eastern Pakistan. It does NOT refer to India as a whole or even the subcontinent.
Nor does it refer to all of Pakistan.
Hindustan is historically a geographic term despite the fact that is has been politicized now. Even Hind and "Hindu" had no religious meaning until the British labeled the various pagan cults of South Asia as such into one "Hinduism."
A basic map of Hindustan which includes areas of Southern China:
Other people think of this as a regional term for the whole subcontinent. According to geographers and historians, the region of Hindustan covers the Ganges valley in Northern India and the Punjab and Sindh regions of Eastern Pakistan. It also includes Rajesthan and the Delhi region and perhaps parts of China which touches points of the Indus river.
It does not refer to the entire subcontinent, let alone all of India.
According to my knowledge, the word was used by the Mughals for the territories they controlled in South Asia, which was mostly North India, North Eastern Pakistan and Bangladesh.
The word Hindustan most likely has it's roots in Hind, which in term is a corruption of the word Sindh, from the Sanskrit Sindhu which came from "Sapta Sindhu" meaning "land of the rivers."
Sapta Sindhu or the land of the rivers included the river-covered areas of eastern Pakistan and northwestern India.
The Persians who frequently visited the subcontinent through out the centuries, referred to the region as "Hind." This word was most likely a synonym for Sindhu.
For those who do not know, the Mughals were a mostly Persian-led empire with an army of Turko-Mongols. But this army was one of many Persian armies that visited South Asia going back centuries before the common era.
If Hind had the same meaning behind Sindh, then being a Persian led force, the Mughals continued to use the word Hind to refer to the region of rivers in South Asia as their ancestors did, which was mostly the Ganges Valley in Northern India and the Indus Valley in central and eastern Pakistan.
If these theories are correct, it coincides with the original marking of Hindustan which cuts through North India and North Eastern Pakistan. The Mughal word Hindustan could very well be a continuation of the word Hind.
Below is the map of the territories controlled by the Mughal Empire:
Another misconception is that Hindustan had a religious meaning. This is not true at all. As already known to many, the reference to "Hindu" and "Hinduism" as a collective religion did not exist until the arrival of the British who termed all the indigenous religions of South Asia as "one."
If Hind had the same meaning as "Sindh" then Hindustan would also mean "land of the rivers" which makes sense, since the area of Punjab and the Ganges valley was rules by the Mughals.
Sindh was not under Mughal rule as far as any sources state , nor do any maps show most of Pakistan being under Mughal rule.
Conclusively, the correct meaning of Hindustan is the region that cuts through Northern India and North Eastern Pakistan. It does NOT refer to India as a whole or even the subcontinent.
Nor does it refer to all of Pakistan.
Hindustan is historically a geographic term despite the fact that is has been politicized now. Even Hind and "Hindu" had no religious meaning until the British labeled the various pagan cults of South Asia as such into one "Hinduism."
A basic map of Hindustan which includes areas of Southern China:
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Aryans of Pakistan
Many Pakistani history writers when discussing the pre-history of Pakistan, mention the Aryans as just one of the invaders alongside the Persians, the Greeks or the Mongols etc.
What they don't realize is that the situation of the Aryans was very different than that of the Persians, Arabs or others, for the Aryans are the ancestors of most modern-day Pakistanis, most likely alongside the native peoples of the Indus Valley.
As mentioned in another post of mine, Aryan does not necessarily mean a white-skinned person, but rather a person of wise or noble descent.
The word has it's roots in the Sanskrit word Aryaa meaning wise or noble.
Though I'm not entirely sure, I was reading on a forum that the literal meaning of Aarya was one who is ahead; hence more advanced.
This theory makes sense to me, as I've found words in Indo-European languages which contain the sound "A" at the beginning of words which indicate a forward direction.
For example the Urdu word for front "aagay" or words in English such as 'ahead' "again" (again indicating repeated cycles).
Even the word heir (pronounced Aa-yer) meaning a successor might be connected to "Aryan" or "Aarya," maybe having it's roots in an expression of after or beyond.
Though it's not a proven fact, it's a strong theory. Already the connection between most Pakistani and European languages is proven, thus pointing to the fact that most Pakistanis and Europeans do have common ancestry at least on Y-Chromosome lines:
We are the Aryans of Pakistan.
Most particularly this refers to those of Sindhi and Punjabi descent. The Aryans were the Sanskrit speakers who migrated from the Eurasian steppes along the Black Sea and later merged with the indigenous people of the Indus Valley. From their Sanskrit language came the modern languages of Punjabi, Sindhi, Urdu and other Indo-Aryan languages. About five centuries later they were followed by their distant relatives, the Iranic peoples.
Their descents are mainly the Pakhtuns and the Baloch. All languages derived from Vedic Sanskrit are Indo-Aryan languages and those who descend from the Vedic Aryans are the modern Indo-Aryans.
The descendants of the early Iranic peoples who came to Pakistan are mainly the Pakhtuns and the Baloch and their languages belong to the Iranic sect of Indo-Iranic.
Click on the linguistic chart below to enlarge:
The Dardic people of Northern Pakistan are also derived from Proto-Indo-Aryans however their isolated position in the mountains has allowed them to evolve differently from Punjabis, Sindhis and other Indo-Aryan populations in Pakistan.
Genetically, the people of the Kashmir Valley and Northern Areas are closer to Eastern Europeans given they stayed in isolation and did not mix as much with indigenous races. Such isolation also allowed their languages to evolve more distinct from other Indo-Aryan languages as well as each others languages which is why they are often given the separate classification of "Dardic."
This name was given to the land by the ancient Greek explorer Herodotus.
The isolation of the Indo-Aryans today known as the Dards has also allowed them to preserve many aspects of their culture, particularly the non-Muslim Kalash population who practice a continuation of the prehistoric Indo-European religion(s).
The Aryans who started arriving around the seventeenth century BC were the most significant invaders, being our ancestors and bringing with them the Sanskrit language which became most of Pakistan's main languages.
The other invaders were not as significant since they did not leave many descendants. If one is to search haplogroup maps on Pakistan, there is not much Semitic, Mediterranean or Turanian markers in the Pakistani population.
Pakistanis are the decedents of the Aryan invaders combined with the native population of the Indus Valley; though it is not clear who the Indus Valley people(s) were.
There might have been other populations passing through, the IVC could have been a multi-ethnic society, but there are too many unsolved mysteries about what Pakistan was like before the Aryan invasion of the region.
What they don't realize is that the situation of the Aryans was very different than that of the Persians, Arabs or others, for the Aryans are the ancestors of most modern-day Pakistanis, most likely alongside the native peoples of the Indus Valley.
As mentioned in another post of mine, Aryan does not necessarily mean a white-skinned person, but rather a person of wise or noble descent.
The word has it's roots in the Sanskrit word Aryaa meaning wise or noble.
Though I'm not entirely sure, I was reading on a forum that the literal meaning of Aarya was one who is ahead; hence more advanced.
This theory makes sense to me, as I've found words in Indo-European languages which contain the sound "A" at the beginning of words which indicate a forward direction.
For example the Urdu word for front "aagay" or words in English such as 'ahead' "again" (again indicating repeated cycles).
Even the word heir (pronounced Aa-yer) meaning a successor might be connected to "Aryan" or "Aarya," maybe having it's roots in an expression of after or beyond.
Though it's not a proven fact, it's a strong theory. Already the connection between most Pakistani and European languages is proven, thus pointing to the fact that most Pakistanis and Europeans do have common ancestry at least on Y-Chromosome lines:
We are the Aryans of Pakistan.
Most particularly this refers to those of Sindhi and Punjabi descent. The Aryans were the Sanskrit speakers who migrated from the Eurasian steppes along the Black Sea and later merged with the indigenous people of the Indus Valley. From their Sanskrit language came the modern languages of Punjabi, Sindhi, Urdu and other Indo-Aryan languages. About five centuries later they were followed by their distant relatives, the Iranic peoples.
Their descents are mainly the Pakhtuns and the Baloch. All languages derived from Vedic Sanskrit are Indo-Aryan languages and those who descend from the Vedic Aryans are the modern Indo-Aryans.
The descendants of the early Iranic peoples who came to Pakistan are mainly the Pakhtuns and the Baloch and their languages belong to the Iranic sect of Indo-Iranic.
Click on the linguistic chart below to enlarge:
The Dardic people of Northern Pakistan are also derived from Proto-Indo-Aryans however their isolated position in the mountains has allowed them to evolve differently from Punjabis, Sindhis and other Indo-Aryan populations in Pakistan.
Genetically, the people of the Kashmir Valley and Northern Areas are closer to Eastern Europeans given they stayed in isolation and did not mix as much with indigenous races. Such isolation also allowed their languages to evolve more distinct from other Indo-Aryan languages as well as each others languages which is why they are often given the separate classification of "Dardic."
This name was given to the land by the ancient Greek explorer Herodotus.
The isolation of the Indo-Aryans today known as the Dards has also allowed them to preserve many aspects of their culture, particularly the non-Muslim Kalash population who practice a continuation of the prehistoric Indo-European religion(s).
The Aryans who started arriving around the seventeenth century BC were the most significant invaders, being our ancestors and bringing with them the Sanskrit language which became most of Pakistan's main languages.
The other invaders were not as significant since they did not leave many descendants. If one is to search haplogroup maps on Pakistan, there is not much Semitic, Mediterranean or Turanian markers in the Pakistani population.
Pakistanis are the decedents of the Aryan invaders combined with the native population of the Indus Valley; though it is not clear who the Indus Valley people(s) were.
There might have been other populations passing through, the IVC could have been a multi-ethnic society, but there are too many unsolved mysteries about what Pakistan was like before the Aryan invasion of the region.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
