Who Created Harappan / Indus Valley Civilisation? | How Did It End? | Samvaad With Devdutt Pattanaik

[peagle]

@peagle @PAKISTANFOREVER

(Chapter 10: The Genomics of Race and Identity, emphasis added):

“In India, we learned that in order to get the work published, we had to make a compromise. We had to let the Indian researchers write the paper in a way that puts a gloss on what the genetic data actually show.

“The compromise was to describe the mixing of different groups in India as having occurred between ‘Ancestral North Indians’ and ‘Ancestral South Indians,’ a terminology that implies parity between the groups, rather than calling them what they really were: a mixture between West Eurasians (including Steppe migrants) and indigenous South Asians.

“It was a politically motivated maneuver to avoid inflaming what is perhaps the most politically sensitive topic in India: the origin of the caste system.”

Source - Who we are and how we got here : David Reich

That state is built on lies.

I had a tattered copy of The Indus Saga by Aitzaz Ahsan. So i requested a copy from India. As is my habit i quickly glanced through the content page, purely by habit because i already mostly knew the book. My eyes noticed something strange so i opened the original.

The original print shows the last chapter as "Towards a new Dawn" or something similar, working from memory.

In the Indian print the last chapter was titled "Towards Partition"

We are criminal in our use of words, we just do not understand the importance of how words are used and when they are omitted.

Partition,
Pakistan bana tha,
Pakistan was created,
india ko azadi mili,
we were one people,
and so on, all idiotic moronic words and statements.

My favourite is yeh hitta eik tha (this region use to be one) it's an oxymoron, so friggin stupid that on numerous occasions I have left expletive remarks for the speakers.
It was a region, today, it is still a region, regions by definition are a single descriptive term, it is still one. It's like Pakistanis just don't think.

These days they have started using the suffix "Ji" when mentioning indian leaders. But not when mentioning Pakistani leaders. It creates unconscious respect for the one who's been referred to as "Ji". it's by design from the Indian state and establishment. We are so stupid that our lot have started using it as well.
I am certain they have been asked by indian, everyone has contacts these days. Kar do nah yaar, kuch nahin hota, little sweet talk and Pakistanis are done for.

They have also started replacing the "R" sound with the "D". The R is part of the process in India where in Hindi they are actively expunging certain sounds, so R is replaced by the D, so Ladki rather then Larki. Z is replaced by the J, so Jindagi rather then Zindagi.
I have seen Pakistan channels and our so-called experts use the D, because they monkeys, monkey see monkey do. Not a single original brain cell between them.

My issue isn't with what India does, although it matters and deserves highlighting.
My issue is the stupidity of our own people. There are few so-called experts in this forum with their own YouTube channels, I've had numerous arguments them because they're lazy in their choice of words. When you point the deficiency they get their panties in a twist. it is so annoying, and the examples are endless.

 

[peagle]

Let me add though, context regarding why "South Asia" is sometimes problematic, which is perhaps what has been alluded to by others on other threads... we don't wish to be "lumped" together with Bharatis in the context of diaspora communities, as an example. Indeed, the term is deployed strategically by you know who, to create passive collateral benefit when a Pakistani achieves but when a Pakistani fails, naturally, the collective term South Asians is avoided. I get what critics mean about "South Asia" being harmful in this context. But you are 100% right that this term is correct when there is a need to avoid bias in historical and anthropological discourse.

I am going to enter a rare territoty lol
I strong disagree with this conclusion, your understanding of it or the conclusions as presented by others.

When you start picking and choosing words to suit your own end, we're no better then those we're accusing. This feels like a game of find the correct term.

Two terms already exist, it's like trying to reinvent the wheel, you just cannot do it.
Subcontinent and South Asia are used interchangeably, but in truth only one term applies, that's South Asia. By trying to pick a term acceptable to 260 million does not mean the 9.7 billion are going to adopt it. It's just not going to happen.

The choice is very clear.
Subcontinent and all it's baggage, or
South Asia and it's neutrality.

There is no other option, and South Asia makes sense, and it has internationally legal recognition.

How Indians use it is an entirely different issue, it's a totally different topic. By trying to confuse the two we'll go no further then internal confusion because the world certainly does not care.

Let's say, today we concluded on Pakistani subcontinent, write books on it and found scientific logic behind it. The world wouldn't give a damn. Because there's an element of continuity involved. New terms are not readily accepted unless they fall within existing parameters.
Regarding ANI/ASI there's still room to make changes, it's not a massive field and it's not a radical shift.

Outside of South Asia or subcontinent, anything else has less then zero chance of being accepted. We're just having arguments for sake of arguements while the Indians continue doing what they do.

 

[Master Chief]

I am going to enter a rare territoty lol
I strong disagree with this conclusion, your understanding of it or the conclusions as presented by others.

When you start picking and choosing words to suit your own end, we're no better then those we're accusing. This feels like a game of find the correct term.

Two terms already exist, it's like trying to reinvent the wheel, you just cannot do it.
Subcontinent and South Asia are used interchangeably, but in truth only one term applies, that's South Asia. By trying to pick a term acceptable to 260 million does not mean the 9.7 billion are going to adopt it. It's just not going to happen.

The choice is very clear.
Subcontinent and all it's baggage, or
South Asia and it's neutrality.

There is no other option, and South Asia makes sense, and it has internationally legal recognition.

How Indians use it is an entirely different issue, it's a totally different topic. By trying to confuse the two we'll go no further then internal confusion because the world certainly does not care.

Let's say, today we concluded on Pakistani subcontinent, write books on it and found scientific logic behind it. The world wouldn't give a damn. Because there's an element of continuity involved. New terms are not readily accepted unless they fall within existing parameters.
Regarding ANI/ASI there's still room to make changes, it's not a massive field and it's not a radical shift.

Outside of South Asia or subcontinent, anything else has less then zero chance of being accepted. We're just having arguments for sake of arguements while the Indians continue doing what they do.

We don't actually disagree here.

I agree that South Asia is the best generalised term except when strict dissociation is required in the conversation, in which case Pakistan is the best term.

Your point about "subcontinent" is well made and well understood, since it naturally takes the qualifying adjective "Indian". If it existed in common discourse as "Asian subcontinent", then it may have been acceptable. But it doesn't, so yes "South Asia" remains preferable.

 

[Master Chief]

You're now confusing three completely different things etymology, geographical usage, and modern territorial inheritance.

Sure India is an exonym or you can call yourselves India, go ahead nobody is stopping you. Although the British would've laughed their way to London if presented at the time. But you're a sovereign state you can, you got the indus, you got Sindh, so India maybe, but India wasn't partitioned based on boundaries of IV was it? Yet I agree with you.

What doesn't follow is that the geographical meaning of “India” was frozen forever at the boundaries of Hindus. Hecateus could already identify Indians in Gandhara despite Gandara and Hindi being distinct Achaemenid territories, and Herodotus knew of Indians outside Persian rule. By Megasthnees the matter is explicit. Say description of Pataliputra as “the greatest city in India.” So Gangetic being Indian isn't some Nehruvian reinterpretation invented in 1947. Greeks were applying India to the Gangetic world more than two millennia earlier.

Sure Pakistan has IVC sites it was first discovered by the British in Indus valley hence the name. But what Pakistan doesn't acquire from that fact is exclusive biological ownership of the Harappans. Ancient DNA shows IVC related ancestry contributed extensively to later South Asian populations on both sides of a border created thousands of years later. So if you want to push this disconnect further you should find your own skeleton remains with DNA, not kang on our scientific research and development based on our archeological excavation in our sites. Keep pushing we will get there.

Also none of your points establishes your actual proposition that Gangetic Indians connection to IVC populations is a Nehruvian illusion produced by a stolen name. Ancient DNA has made that argument obsolete.

If so what exactly is Pakistan, a land that's sparsely populated once, exploding in population only because British invented better irrigation canal system. Founded by a Gujarati, and still using language founded in Delhi now is claiming to be India, Sanskrit Vedas, IVC. We are not confused about our identity. We are Indians you should be Pakistani and create history for years to come, not try to claim you are this and that when you dropped any hint of the culture, you created Pakistan to prove Muslims are not Hindus take pride in breaking idols and erasing them. Now you took a 180 or maybe you're just trying to prove Hindus and Indians are not Hindus and Indians lol! However rare you guys are I do appreciate the hustle.

Your not wrong that the exonym "India" eventually was used to describe the eastern hinterlands well beyond the Indus. But we know this already! Why else did the British refer to the WHOLE region as India on their maps?

That does not obviate the original error. It simply fossilised the error. Naturally, Nehru took full advantage. Who wouldn't?

I have simply illustrated the original naming of the region of the Indus by Persians and their Greek subjects, and later by Greeks who took over those lands from Persians.

If you feel "India" ORIGINALLY referred to anything substantially beyond the Indus Valley, then do present evidence for this so it may be scrutinised. Megasthenes (who came AFTER those who originally referred to India as the Indus) did include Pataliputra, for example, as you have stated already, in his work on "India" but this is simple "lumping" of additional tribes into the original descriptor, partly because it was a contiguous and controlled empire under Maurya at the time. This practice is not unusual and is in fact the norm for anthropological classification by outsiders.

You tell me. Do contiguous empires automatically transform into a single unified nation in a cultural sense? Of course not. Look at any empire of your choosing, Roman, Holy Roman, Ottoman, Mughal, British etc.

Yes the genetics does maintain continuity between Pakistanis and NORTH Indians (southies are already excluded if you intend to use a genetic argument). But Herodotus , Megasthenes and the Persians didn't know that! Differences between the tribes of the Indus and the tribes of distal North India are specified in cultural AND anthropological terms by way of both references to "mleccha" within Vedic texts but also because you and I both know that the Rakhigiri specimen had ZERO Aryan contribution to her genome. The IVC existed before the Aryans came and probably collapsed before they arrived.

Lastly, you have made assertions on the purpose of the creation of the modern nation state of Pakistan in 1947 which are beyond the scope of this discussion. The suggestions made are patently false and slanderous and I would gladly discuss them with you in an appropriate thread. Furthermore, we are entirely cognisant of the genetics of modern Pakistanis, including migrants from coterminous India and many of our own founding fathers. There is good reason they chose to come here and help create the modern republic - again, a discussion for another thread.

 

[r3alist]

Nobody tried to steal anything. Do you think people are paying close attention to who gets Indus valley like the weight of the world shifts from one to another?

Why are you back?

When will you not care