154 replies to this topic

[newtrolls]

Hello,

I have some questions about Pakistan. Please forgive my ignorance about your country & culture.

1. histrorically, Pakistan and india were one country and shared cultural heritage ?
If so, how these two countries became separate ? I know reliegion is one factor but anything else ?

2. Are you guys ethnically different from Indians ?
   How much ?

3. Is there some birth control campaign or something ?
    I think Pakistan needs to control her population anyhow.

Thanks in advance

[Lulldapull]

Answer 1:

The Muslim population of India was wary of Hindu intentions during the 30's- 40's! The "co-existence" philosophy was viewed with deep mistrust, as the muslims were outnumbered more than 9:1 back in the day! Even now there more than 1 billion Hindu's in India with around 150 million muslims!

Answer 2:

The western half of the country that includes the provinces of NWFP and Balochistan are ethnicly Persian people. Both provinces were part of greater Persia when the British severed Afghanistan from Iran in 1856 along Shia/ Sunni lines, and the current western frontier of Pakistan is the furthest the british army exercised its control in the then Subcontinent!

Answer 3:

Yes there is some effort by our third world government to control the population bomb, before we become another fukkan India or Bangladesh! It is the same old problem being confronted by all undr developed and third world countries, where all the poor motherfukkers get married young, and produce more offspring than they can feed and clothe! INMO this population problem is the single geatest danger to Pakistan's survival!

[FlexRay]

Quote

histrorically, Pakistan and india were one country

Wrong! Historically Pakistan has never  been part of India , although the name Pakistan was not there but starting from 300 BC (even before Isalm came) till date the part of land that is Pakistan was never part of India and never will be.
It's only some odd periods of history (which don't even acount for a fraction of the history of the land) that the land that is Pakistan and the Land that is India were one.

Quote

2. Are you guys ethnically different from Indians ?
How much ?

Ethnically Pakistanis are not the same as indian ,our ancestors comprise mostly of the conquerors that  came from central asia, persia, arabia, mongolia who then setteld in these lands.

Ethnicity on the bases of region is Punjabi, Pathan, Sindhi, Balochi, Kashmiri
The gov of Pakistan has an active birth control proream specially for our rural region. My own thought about having children is that every one should have three   In my opinion that's enough birth control any thing more than this is a bit too much.

[el_cid]

India , Pakistan and Bangladesh (also Sri Lanka) were together known as British India and ruled as a colony by Britain until 1947.

British India was divided into India and Pakistan (comprising of today's Pakistan + BanglaDesh) in 1947, following an agitation led by M. Jinnah demanding a seperate homeland for the sub continents muslims.
Bangladesh seperated in 1971 to become an independent nation.

Ethnic similarity. Well it depends. Punjabis (60% of the population) and Sindhis obviously are of the same etnecity as punjabis and sindhis in india. Balochis and Pakthuns(pathans) have less in common.
However in Pakistani society , great prestige derives from an arab or iranian ancestry. Thus, many pakistanis claim this.

The above of course is over-simplified and you could have doen a simple web search, rather than posting here.

[Lulldapull]

I don't think any one in Pakistan can lay claim to be an A-raanb! We have no border with any Arabian country! Iran or Afghan or Indian ancestry yes!

punjabis and Sindhi's are related to the North Indian Stock! And as I said, pushtun/ balochi's are an iranic race. If you compare the relative ethnic population comparison's the pushtun's comprise 8% of the racial percentage! and the balochi's a mere 2%!

[ironman419]

I've read somewhere that Punjabis are 40% Australoid racially, those are the native people of South Asia.  The further south you go in India, the more Australoid people are.

[el_cid]

Quote

Yes there is some effort by our third world government to control the population bomb, before we become another fukkan India or Bangladesh!

The population growth rates are as follows:

India - 1.6%
Bangladesh - 1.6%
Pakistan - 2.1 %

They are all too high, China for example is 0.8%

Quote

Everybody should be limited to 3 children. Anything else is a bit much

This is a recipe for disaster. All three countries need to institute a one child policy.

[ironman419]

Yep, too many people, too little food, too little land.  There ain't many empty areas in the world anymore.

[FlexRay]

The Arabs came with Muhammad-bin-Qasim and that's how Islam came to Pakistan.  

You probably don't like Arabs but this fact of history that you can not deny.

[Lulldapull]

Ironman, the punjabi's belong to the main Indo- Aryan pantheon! they are probably the least bit "australoid"! As are Sindhi's! Both are Indo European!

the only ppl in Pakistan who can be considered "australoid" or dravidian/ dardic are a few tribes in Balochistan ( brohvi's ) that are very dark and their language is non- iranic! They are an anomaly in Balochistan as their heritage cannot be traced, but is linked to a very old settlement of "dravidians" in Sistan va Balochistan. the others are found in Kashmir, and are called the dark Kashmiri's, who also speak some weird language!

personally, race does not play an important role in Pakistan, as ppl are next to oblivious as to their racial backgrounds.


El-Cid, good post! three children/ jahil family, is surely a recipe for disaster!

[Lulldapull]

FlexRay, on Jun 6 2003, 03:36 PM, said:

The Arabs came with Muhammad-bin-Qasim and that's how Islam came to Pakistan.  

You probably don't like Arabs but this fact of history that you can not deny.

Oh okay! a 1000 strong "A-raanb" lashkar comes into Sindh for a few months, and copulates with all "Pakistani's" and gives us our A-raanb heritage???   

Bhai sahab, please think about it! Pakistan was invaded and settled by the Cenral Asian's/ Mongols/ Iranian's and Afghan kings for a thousand years, compared to what "mohammad Bin qasim" did there in Deibul for a few months! He went back in a few months!

[FlexRay]

Think what you may

Some body with a name like Lulldapull can't be taken seriously  

[newtrolls]

Thanks for your answers !

This is my personal thoughts on Pakistan.
(No offence intended)

Pakistan has a few good things like
1. a secular islam country with some democray
2. does not have terrible indian CAST system
3. english is widely spoken
4. has nukes

So lessen the tension against India and crack down terrorist supporters. Get along with Israle although you don't like them. At least pretend to be nice.
Focus on building social infrastructures such as road, electricity etc... and modernize business practices.
This will invite foreign investment and upgrade whole country. Then you can buy Rafale or F-16 whatever.....

[Lulldapull]

Flex- boy, tu itna ghabrata kiyon hae???   

Jo bhancho such hae, vo such hae! If we have "Indian genes" in us, then its nothing to be ashamed of! you are still a musalman! Ab bhancho Arbee naheen hae to main kiya karoon???

Anyway, here is the proto-Indo european family tree! decide for yourself where we come from! ( leaving old wives tales aside )!   



And the link:http://www.bartleby.com/61/indoeuro.html


Note: a new addition of "Anatolian" has been added to the pantheon ( although unconfirmed ), I have always doubted the Turks as having Indo european roots! them boys ain't nothing but a bunch of mutts of all races!   

[ironman419]

Linguistically Indians are Pakistanis are Indo-European peoples, but genetically they have Australoid ancestry, but Cacausian is dominant.

If you look at Finns, they speak an Asiatic language, but they are mainly Cacausian with a little bit of Mongloid ancestry.  Language tells us alot, but not everything.

[FlexRay]

First learn to talk from your mouth and not from your butt then yeah sure maybe you can be taken seriously

[ironman419]

Lulldapull, on Jun 6 2003, 03:51 PM, said:

Note: a new addition of "Anatolian" has been added to the pantheon ( although unconfirmed ), I have always doubted the Turks as having Indo european roots! them boys ain't nothing but a bunch of mutts of all races!   

Anatolian Turks are a mixture between Cacausians and Mongoloids.  If you look at pictures of Turkmens, they are nearly pure Mongoloid, although many have straight Cacausian noses.  I believe Turks are 30% Mongoloid and 70% Caucausian, with an Asiatic language.

[Lulldapull]

FlexRay, on Jun 6 2003, 03:55 PM, said:

First learn to talk from your mouth and not from your butt then yeah sure maybe you can be taken seriously

Now Flex-boy! Don't get personal! I am not insulting you! I just laid out the racial/ language tree. you can claim to be from prince "Bandar Bin sultan's"  jhaantt! I could care less. but the tree tells us otherwise, as it was researched by scientists, not the corner Maulana who tells you that putting two fingers in the ass is "gunnah" but one is a jolly good time!     

now calm down and digest the info. and once again ziyada ghabranay key zaroorat naheen hae! jo hae vo hae! Mairay ya tairay kehnay say it wont change putar.

[ironman419]

On that graph you will see Frisian and English, it's the closest language to English.  I've read it and it's almost identical to Old English.

[Lulldapull]

How you like that tree Ironman???? Ain't it da bomb!

Also you are absolutely correct that most of these "anatolian's" are a bunch of "Eurasians"!   as are the Mongols, Japanese and the Koreans!

[FlexRay]

First of all I haven't claimed to be from an Arab decent but having said that you can't say that the Arab link is not there.

By the way what exactly do you mean by 'jo hae vo hae!'?

A word of advice, if you are not a 'jahil' keep your language straight.

[PakiPatriot]

in my view, we cant determine our ancestry.........or maybe just the most dominant one.....but it wont be the same for everybody, even if two claim to be Punjabi or Sindhi, or what not!

in my opinion, DOES IT REALLY MATTER?
hell, we're in deep ####.....our ancestry aint gonna change nothin!

[PakiPatriot]

I'm offended by the word "INDIC" :x  

[Lulldapull]

Flex boy,  Chutiappay kay pungay lainay ka koi faida naheen hae! I hope you learn't something new today!

Present some evidence or for that matter counter evidence to confound my claim!

B.T.W. " Jo hae vo Hae", means what is true is true! You and me cannot change that on heresay or on our emotional whims! We are what we are! It doesn't make us any less "muslims" or "Pakistani's" if we have Indian ancestry! If you have inferiority complex or some other issues, I can't help you! I just told the truth about where we come from!

[platinum786]

I don't know where we originate from.........

Basicly it was traced back to a Nomad, really useful!!!

He settled in Kashmir, went on from there.

[FlexRay]

I know my family tree very well and I know that I don't have even a remotely indian link.
Not that I believe in color or race or etnicity but something I don't have I don't have. To
believe in color or race or ethnicity is against my faith.

and listen mate you and I ain't friends or buddies so keep the language as
it should be unless ofcourse you are a 'jahil'


Incase you want to read our history here is a link to Pakistan's History
(  has more details about origins of the people of Pakistan )
http://www.geocities...tory/Indus.html

[Lulldapull]

It's not a question of where "your" family originates from! Do you also assume that other Pakistani's ( at least 90% ) Non Persian ones that comprise the majority punjabi's/ seraiki's/ Sindhi's etc also have no link to Indian heritage/ ancestry????

If so then we have nothing further to discuss! you can believe that you have A-raanb ancestry sir! i am not stopping you from believing that! But present some evidence that we have Arabian or Martian links or are genetically/ linguistically/ racially from their stock! Mohammad bin qasim's two month stunt at Deibul, ain't quite cuttin it!

[FlexRay]

A link that is so obvious that Arabs did stay back in the land that is Pakistan is our language itself.

Urdu has so many words from Arabic, how did they get there ?!  Words of one language don't become a part of another in a matter of months it is a gradual process spread over a number of years this itself is a statement about the Arabian connection.

I don't think one needs to be a extra smart to figure these things out

We have Arabic   words in Urdu
We have Persian words in Urdu
We have Turkish  words in Urdu
We have Sanskrit & Hindi  words in Urdu ( Ok some Indian connection is there )

The language that we speak it self has the answers about our origin.

[ironman419]

Lulldapull, on Jun 6 2003, 04:04 PM, said:

How you like that tree Ironman???? Ain't it da bomb!

Also you are absolutely correct that most of these "anatolian's" are a bunch of "Eurasians"!   as are the Mongols, Japanese and the Koreans!

Mongols, Japanese, and Koreans are Eurasians, but Eurasian is not a racial group.

When I say Asiatic language, I mean Altaic, Finno-Ugric, Turkic-Mongol, all of which are related.

If you take for example the Finns, they speak a Finno-Ugric language which is related to Turkic and Mongolic languages.  They are about 20% Mongoloid and 80% Caucasoid.  Turks speak a Turkic language, and are about 30% Mongoloid and 70% Caucasoid.  Bulgarians take their names from a Finno-Ugric-Altaic Asiatic people, are a little bit Mongoloid and mostly Caucasian, and they speak an Indo-European language.

Flexray,

English also has word from all of those languages, such as pajamas, assassin, chess, and others.  Doesn't tell you everything.

[PakiPatriot]

Urdu derives from Farsi.....it is mostly Farsi

FlexRay....the link you provided gives the history of Pakistan, in my opinion.
Not necessarily all the people who are there......if this is untrue, then please tell me.....from the first few paragraphs that I read, it seemed like it was just talking about Indus

[el_cid]

Quote

We have Arabic words in Urdu
We have Persian words in Urdu
We have Turkish words in Urdu
We have Sanskrit & Hindi words in Urdu ( Ok some Indian connection is there )

Of course urdu has persian/arabic influence. But the language itself [grammer, syntax etc) is india or sub-continental if you prefer, overwhelmingly so. A persian / arabic speaker cannot understand ptv, a hindi speaker can although some of  the persian/arabic words may present a problem.

[FlexRay]

PakiPatriot
The link I gave is quite comprahensive, its' actually history through the ages if you want to continue to read on keep clicking 'next' at the bottom

Ironman
It's true that it doesn't tell you every thing but greater the influence of a language can be direclty related to the longer presence of the people who were the orgnal speakers of that language.


el_cid
The Udru synthax is no way of Indian style as you would like to put.  Urdu letters are like  Arabic, Persian  and Old Turkish ( not the present Turkish) letters.

[FlexRay]

The following should help
Pakistan from 3000 BC to the  present:

1. Indus Valley Civilization:  3000-1500  B.C.  i.e.  about  1500 yrs. Independent, separate from India.  
2. Aryan period: 1500-522 B.C. i.e. about 978 yrs. Independent, separate from India.  
3. Small semi-independent states: 522-326 B.C. i.e. about 196 yrs. Under the suzerainty of Iran's Kayani (Achaemenian) Empire.  
4. Conquered by Alexander and remained under his successor: 326-300 B.C. i.e. about 26 yrs. Under Greek rulers, not part of India.  
5. Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C.  i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule.  
6. Graeco-Bactrian period: 200-100 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Independent, not part of India.  
7.  Saka-Parthian  period:  100  B.C.-  70  A.D.  i.e.  about  170  yrs. Independent, separate from India.  
8.  Kushan rule (1st  phase):  70-250   A.D.   i.e.  about  180  yrs. Pakistan-based kingdom ruled over major portion of north India.  
9.  Kushan rule (2nd  phase):   250-450   A.D.  i.e.  about  200  yrs. Independent, separate from India.  
10. White Huns and allied tribes (1st  phase):  450-650 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdoms ruled over parts of north India.  
11. White Huns (2nd phase--- mixed with other races): 650-1010 A.D. i.e. about 360 yrs. Independent Rajput-Brahmin Kingdoms, not part of India.  
12. Ghaznavids: 1010-1187 A.D.  i.e.  177 yrs. Part of Ghaznavid empire, separate from India.  
13. Ghorid and  Qubacha  periods:  1187-1227  A.D.  i.e.  about  40 yrs. Independent, not part of India.  
14. Muslim period (Slave  dynasty,  Khiljis,  Tughlaqs,  Syeds,  Lodhis, Suris and Mughals): 1227-1739 A.D. i.e. about 512 yrs. Under north India based MUSLIM govts.  
15. Nadir Shah and Abdali  periods:  1739-1800  A.D.  i.e. about 61 yrs. Iranian and Afghan suzerainty, not part of India.  
16. Sikh rule (in Punjab, NWFP and Kashmir), Talpur rule in Sind, Khanate of Kalat in Baluchistan:  1800-1848  A.D.  i.e.  about 48 yrs. Independent states, not part of India.  
17. British rule: 1848-1947 A.D. i.e.  about 99 yrs (1843-1947 in Sind). Part of India under FOREIGN rule.  
18. Muslim rule under the nomenclature of Pakistan:  1947-present. Independent, not part of India.

[ironman419]

It's like English.

English in the year 1000 was very similar to other Germanic languages, and probably would have remained similar if not for the Norman invasion in 1066.

Alot of French/Latin words were added to the English language, even though the number of Normans was very small compared to the numbers of Anglo-Saxons.

I myself am Norman if I go straight back paternally to 1066, but I don't go around telling everybody up and down the street "I'm Norman!!!!!"

If you look at the French, they take their names from a German tribe (the Franks) and virtually all of their first names are German.  That's where it ends though.  The German language has picked up alot more Latin than French has German, even though the Germans were the conquerors.

Even before that the people in France (Gaul) were Celts.  They were conquered by the Romans and adopted Latin as their language.  That doesn't mean that they are the same as Italians ancestorally.

[ironman419]

Seperate from India as India exists today.

The truth is though that most of Pakistan was populated by Indian subcontinent peoples.  Even in India there were a bunch of independent states, no different for what is now Pakistan.

[el_cid]

Quote

el_cid
The Udru synthax is no way of Indian style as you would like to put. Urdu letters are like Arabic, Persian and Old Turkish ( not the present Turkish) letters.

The script is arabic , the synatax and grammer is indian or hindustani.

Quote

now calm down and digest the info. and once again ziyada ghabranay key zaroorat naheen hae! jo hae vo hae! Mairay ya tairay kehnay say it wont change putar.

This is a quote from a previous poster. Do the following experiment. Have it read by a arabic, farsi and hindi speaker .

[DeepThirdMan]

ironman419, on Jun 6 2003, 03:32 PM, said:

I've read somewhere that Punjabis are 40% Australoid racially, those are the native people of South Asia.  The further south you go in India, the more Australoid people are.

That is incorrect.

Majority if the Indian  (+Pakistan) are Indo-Aryan (72%),  Dravidian (25%), and 3% Mongoloids and others.
http://www.cia.gov/c...k/print/in.html

Dravidians are not  Australoids, they are of mediterranean origin (Egypt/North Africa).

About 1% people are of Austrailod origin, they are tribals who live in South Bihar (Munda, Ora Tribes), MP (Bheels), Chateesgarh (Munda), and northern Orissa (Munda, Orau).

[ironman419]

Yep, script has nothing to do with what a language is.  All of Western Europe shares the same script, but this comes from the Romans, they got it from the Greeks, and they got it from the Phoenicians.

Greek script was spread northward to Slavic lands by Christian missionaries.  Doesn't mean they are Hellenic tongues.

Another example is Turkish.  It was written in an Arabic script, didn't make it an Arabic language, and it was later changed to a Latin script, doesn't make it a Latin language.

[ironman419]

DeepThirdMan, on Jun 6 2003, 06:26 PM, said:

ironman419, on Jun 6 2003, 03:32 PM, said:

I've read somewhere that Punjabis are 40% Australoid racially, those are the native people of South Asia.  The further south you go in India, the more Australoid people are.

That is incorrect.

Majority if the Indian  (+Pakistan) are Indo-Aryan (72%),  Dravidian (25%), and 3% Mongoloids and others.
http://www.cia.gov/c...k/print/in.html

Dravidians are not  Australoids, they are of mediterranean origin (Egypt/North Africa).

About 1% people are of Austrailod origin, they are tribals who live in South Bihar (Munda, Ora Tribes), MP (Bheels), Chateesgarh (Munda), and northern Orissa (Munda, Orau).

People confuse language with race too much.  CIA doesn't do genetic tests either.

[DeepThirdMan]

FlexRay, on Jun 6 2003, 06:13 PM, said:

The following should help
Pakistan from 3000 BC to the  present:

1. Indus Valley Civilization:  3000-1500  B.C.  i.e.  about  1500 yrs. Independent, separate from India.  
2. Aryan period: 1500-522 B.C. i.e. about 978 yrs. Independent, separate from India.  
3. Small semi-independent states: 522-326 B.C. i.e. about 196 yrs. Under the suzerainty of Iran's Kayani (Achaemenian) Empire.  
4. Conquered by Alexander and remained under his successor: 326-300 B.C. i.e. about 26 yrs. Under Greek rulers, not part of India.  
5. Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C.  i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule.  
6. Graeco-Bactrian period: 200-100 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Independent, not part of India.  
7.  Saka-Parthian  period:  100  B.C.-  70  A.D.  i.e.  about  170  yrs. Independent, separate from India.  
8.  Kushan rule (1st  phase):  70-250   A.D.   i.e.  about  180  yrs. Pakistan-based kingdom ruled over major portion of north India.  
9.  Kushan rule (2nd  phase):   250-450   A.D.  i.e.  about  200  yrs. Independent, separate from India.  
10. White Huns and allied tribes (1st  phase):  450-650 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdoms ruled over parts of north India.  
11. White Huns (2nd phase--- mixed with other races): 650-1010 A.D. i.e. about 360 yrs. Independent Rajput-Brahmin Kingdoms, not part of India.  
12. Ghaznavids: 1010-1187 A.D.  i.e.  177 yrs. Part of Ghaznavid empire, separate from India.  
13. Ghorid and  Qubacha  periods:  1187-1227  A.D.  i.e.  about  40 yrs. Independent, not part of India.  
14. Muslim period (Slave  dynasty,  Khiljis,  Tughlaqs,  Syeds,  Lodhis, Suris and Mughals): 1227-1739 A.D. i.e. about 512 yrs. Under north India based MUSLIM govts.  
15. Nadir Shah and Abdali  periods:  1739-1800  A.D.  i.e. about 61 yrs. Iranian and Afghan suzerainty, not part of India.  
16. Sikh rule (in Punjab, NWFP and Kashmir), Talpur rule in Sind, Khanate of Kalat in Baluchistan:  1800-1848  A.D.  i.e.  about 48 yrs. Independent states, not part of India.  
17. British rule: 1848-1947 A.D. i.e.  about 99 yrs (1843-1947 in Sind). Part of India under FOREIGN rule.  
18. Muslim rule under the nomenclature of Pakistan:  1947-present. Independent, not part of India.

That's bunch of crock.

Before 1947, there was no Pakistan!

So basically you are trying to pass part of Indian history as Pakistani history!

It was not seperate from India, it was India!