Pakistan, the IVC, and a Land of continuous migration and mixing

[Maira La]

Sharing it across such vast differences would inevitably dilute many of its components.

Why is that a problem? Many of Hinduism's practices has already been diluted. Sati is no longer practiced. Devadasi is no longer practiced. Hindu women cover their breasts today, whereas in pre-Islamic times uncovered breasts wasn't a taboo.

A religion/culture being widespread has its benefits. There's more checks & balances, so too many weird practices don't develop in isolation. Some African/Yemeni/Bohra Muslims do something weird called FGM, however it is looked down upon by the global Muslim community which puts pressure to reform.

 

[FuturePAF]

Having so many different cultures and races follow one religion feels odd to me. For me, religion needs to be deeply tied to the culture and history of my own people. Sharing it across such vast differences would inevitably dilute many of its components. You either have to lose some of the unique characteristics tied to your own people or adopt foreign concepts that have no historical connection to you—but I guess people are comfortable with what they’re used to and I wouldn't be comfortable in my skin if I had to adopt to such a life.

This is why the process is usually gradual and different regions still retain some aspects of their previous culture.

Customs that don’t contradict with the religion are fine but those that do were no longer considered acceptable.

This can be seen most recently in how Islam and Christianity is being adopted in Africa. Rapidly growing population but also rapidly adopting the two major abrahamic religions.

 

[FuturePAF]

Why is that a problem? Many of Hinduism's practices has already been diluted. Sati is no longer practiced. Devadasi is no longer practiced. Hindu women cover their breasts today, whereas in pre-Islamic times uncovered breasts wasn't a taboo.

A religion/culture being widespread has its benefits. There's more checks & balances, so too many weird practices don't develop in isolation. Some African/Yemeni/Bohra Muslims do something weird called FGM, however it is looked down upon by the global Muslim community which puts pressure to reform.

Not to mention, that many practices, not just in South Asia, but around the world have changed for many peoples due to contact with the west. Informal gatherings or even (Hindu and Buddhist) temples that excluded women have seen a more formal codification of terms that are seen as more “inclusive”.

 

[Snake]

Having so many different cultures and races follow one religion feels odd to me. For me, religion needs to be deeply tied to the culture and history of my own people. Sharing it across such vast differences would inevitably dilute many of its components. You either have to lose some of the unique characteristics tied to your own people or adopt foreign concepts that have no historical connection to you

These feelings are unique to you. Religion should be a unifying concept shared by all humans. The idea of God, often creator, should be the same for all humans if humans are truly equal.

Can you explain what the creator of Hindus thinks of Mexicans or some other people who've never heard of him?

but I guess people are comfortable with what they’re used to and I wouldn't be comfortable in my skin if I had to adopt to such a life.

Not true - plenty of people convert their religions willingly because they are able to recognize they don't agree with the beliefs they are born in to.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Can you perhaps try and avoid the temptation to not shape thread discussion as per your liking.

I shall try to ignore this insinuation in the answers that I post following.

Every time the topic is mentioned by a pak poster why do a deluge of posts need to be tolerated about how apparently Pakistan discarded it's past, took no interest and therefore should never raise what's under their ground (but say a Bengali can)

Can you perhaps try and avoid the temptation to not shape thread discussion as per your liking.

I shall try to ignore this insinuation in the answers that I post following.

Every time the topic is mentioned by a pak poster why do a deluge of posts need to be tolerated about how apparently Pakistan discarded it's past, took no interest and therefore should never raise what's under their ground (but say a Bengali can)

My comments were strictly tied to the IVC, and to no other manifestation of culture during the second urbanisation phase, that is, from roughly 1500 BC to date.

There is no IVC in Bengal; that insulting remark was quite clearly personal and will be treated as such.

Then the next angle is the ivc is obviously more Indian and therefore Indians have historical and indeed thought suzerainty on the topic

Not my claim. Nothing that I have ever posted was in this direction. Your self-pity is really not connected to my posts.

Both or similar angles are their to suppress Pakistan based involvement on artifacts, history and civilization under their actual feet...

The single point made in this respect, one that holds true, is that no part of the second urbanisation, through its various phases, showed any signs of awareness of the IVC, whether by the current residents of the nation-state of Bangladesh, of India or of Pakistan.

No set of feet showed a single clue about having known about this civilisation until the archaeological excavations of the British, fronted by India-born subordinates who did all the work.

Nations emphasise their history however they want or can, look at the chinese

A terrible example. Chinese history is unbroken. The history of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan starts effectively with the second urbanisation.

In fact look at your own insecure treatment of islamic civilizational within India, can current Indians be reasonably trusted to engage in the topic given the deep historical wounds many seem to carry

This is rubbish. Never, ever have I posted any denial of those phases of Indian cultural development and growth that were influenced by similar cultural phases abroad that may be described as Islamic. If I did make any point, it was that describing architecture, of all the cultural phenomena that might be singled out, as Islamic was too narrow, and that in India, as was true everywhere else, a common set of cultural indicators were mingled very strongly with local elements.

So thank you but perhaps none of your business and consider keeping a polite non-creepy distance from atleast the Pak portion of the ivc, partition is a fact at this stage.
Honestly the front...

Cultural appropriation of archaeological remains is certainly our business.
Your insecurity is clear in your self-pitying post, and needs only additional pity and sympathy, since all the facts have been presented, and found insufferable by an over-sensitive audience.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am not endorsing the below

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Speaks for itself, and reinforces the point that the IVC was lost in the memory and history of those who migrated to India.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You guys are emotional, so if someone hurt your feelings or sensibilities in another place you bring it everywhere you can

Ever heard of phrases in English linking pots to kettles?

Who honestly gives a fig about genetic purity and bloodlines unless you think being a desi nazi is worth a thing in today's world too

The regressive elements do, and they exist on both sides of the Radcliffe Line. There are even some in Bengal.

This desi nazi ideal is not the strongest, fittest, most beautiful, most artistically refined, most intelligent, most inventive, most endowed...ahem... So who wants it and why do you think it's worth bragging about

Only Desi Nazis. As mentioned already, that includes bigots from all three nation-states currently existent in South Asia, without going into detail about practices and beliefs held in Nepal, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, and partially in Bhutan as well. This attempt to create a racial elite is common to all the societies of South Asia.

Frankly you guys ought to want some genetic variation, instead you actually sit, wonder and discuss whether someone's great great great great grandmother might have been violated.... weirdos.

I note this stupid point stings, a point that should have been ignored by every serious member making a contribution to this thread.

The way I see this topic is that it's fertile ground for new discovery, and hindutva sounding appropriation needs to be firmly hit out the discussion, you guys are already insecure about the last thousand years, not to be trusted

What new discovery has emerged from the discussion? You are quite right to reject the Hindutvavadi parts of it, but what is your 'new discovery'? Nothing, but claims to own the ruins of a forgotten civilisation?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes, well maybe not you as a main culprit but your co nationals ensure thats the case....not content with their WhatsApp groups

That is for your moderators to manage. Why put the blame on those posting?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Journal of human genetics is cited

I found this

Where did the Indus Valley people come from?

Discover the world’s best science and medicine | Nature.com

www.nature.com

How does this largely reasonable narration contradict anything that has been posted by responsible and knowledgeable members on this thread?

There is one point that seems aberrant, and that is the assumption that farming methods were adopted by the residents of the IVC from residents of the lands to their east.

The conventional narrative, for what it's worth, is that farming was brought by migrants from the west, starting from its initial beginnings in eastern Anatolia, and in an opposite direction from the movement of these farmers into Europe. So the practice of farming is thought to have travelled eastward, from eastern Anatolia through Persia and present-day Afghanistan, to be introduced to the IVC by the migrants who intermarried with the autochthonous people already present on the sub-continent, who were hunter-gatherers.

I am personally deeply sceptical about the findings of Vageesh and Shinde in particular, as they have demonstrated in their publications a cultural bias, a slant that has unhealthy elements. David Reich cannot be impeached, other than having apparently taken the path of least resistance, and endorsed the finding of the Indian members without questioning.

 

[Joe Shearer]

in all truthfulness there were never Aryan invasions but indus valley invasions into subcontinent and they called these from the indus valley Aryans.

Grossly incorrect. Where do these flights of fancy come from?

These who invaded the Subcontinent were certainly not the Iranians but groups who split from the Iranians thousands of years ago were the said Aryans who invaded subcontinent and they were from Current day Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They were apparently, from the best evidence available, largely through the efforts of archaeolinguistic experts, break-away people from the majority Iranian faith system, a break-away people represented by two movements, one to the west, that landed up in Anatolia as the Mitanni rulers of the Hittites, and the other to the east, that crossed the mountain ranges between contemporary Afghanistan and Pakistan, and over the next millennium, influenced society as far east as the Rajgir mountains, that is, most of the Ganga-Yamuna Doab.

Genetically, there are very small, very exclusive fragments to be found in South India, that number less than 2% of the local population. The south was relatively less influenced by the cultural practices that were being formed in the north, by an amalgamation of the practices of the migrants and the original inhabitants. Some experts date this adoption by the south to as late as 600 BC or even later, covering the Deccan; it is possible that what is referred to as Tamilakam was influenced even later.

Majority of them from current day PAKISTAN.

There is no evidence of this. What form, shape or volumes the migrations took are all largely speculative.

The So-called Pathans, Punjabis and Zindis, Tajiks were the so-called Aryans and are the only remanants of the Aryans that split from Iran thousands of years ago and the Pathans being the closest once who split from the Iranians most recent.

This is totally indefensible. Pathan and Tajik profiles are quite distinact from Punjabi profiles or the general ANI profiles of northern India. Pathan genetic profiles are linked to the Iranian, and Tajik profiles are not merely linked to the Iranian, they ARE Iranian, being descendants of the eastern Iranian speaking people beyond the rule of the Achaemenid Empire, loosely described as Scythians in the west, and as Saka in the east.

Hence in my honest opinion all this story is misunderstood. The Aryans are here today. They were moving into the proper subcontinent and note Indus valley was not part of the subcontinent and the name got stock by mistake.. Indus valley and Sub-continent are two different entities..

What does one say about such wishful thinking?

The Aryans were called the people from the Indus valley which was to the north of the subcontinent they were people of lighter complextion compared to these in the subcontinent

Using Aryan to designate race is obsolete by nearly a 100 years by now. It is clearly understood in academic circles, and by experts on the subject, that Aryan can relate at best to the Indo-Aryan speech of the original migrants into north India, and to the endonym that the Persians used, an endonym that bears no sanctity within India due to the extensive mingling of populations.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes, why don't the geeks still believe in Zeus

Why don't the Italians still follow mars and Jupiter, instead of being seat the holy Roman empire

Or the Persians lost their way after Mithras


The actual reality is these people had the vitality and ability to absorb the new... perhaps?

And how is this harangue connected to a discussion on the IVC?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Our IVC history is like Zoroastrianism for Iran.

It isn't.

Zoroastrianism in Iran existed in unbroken form until the overthrow of the Sassanid Empire by the Arabs. There are physical descendants who migrated to India in two waves, who brought the religious practices of Zoroastrianism, intact, into India and preserved their culture here.

There is NOTHING like that relating to the IVC, neither identifiable descendants, nor religious practices, nor any cultural habits and systems.

Gangas hate Islam so this is another way of having a dig at us.

You should not pay attention to those with an axe to grind.

However, this also requires that you should not yourselves have any axes to grind.

They think with this rhetoric we will disown our history so they can claim it. Do not fall for this. Own it all, every bit of it.

This is not part of your history. Not even part of your proto-history. At best part of your pre-history, but sadly for your self-promotion, a pre-history that may be claimed by many outside the nation-state of Pakistan.

It's like Tunisia trying to own Northern France history

Bizarre observation.

Since you have obviously zero knowledge of the events in Tunisia and Northern France, you might have overlooked the fact that both places saw an originally composite Roman culture that contributed Roman Emperors overrun by the Vandals in Tunisia and the Franks in northern France (ignoring the Belgii for a moment).

Spain was Visigothic, and was recovered by their descendants over a long period of over a millennium.

These are historical facts, not proto-history, not pre-history.

 

[Joe Shearer]

There is no such thing as India or ancient India pre partition. I don't know what your history and nor do I care to know is but what has been constant is IVC, Indus, its geography and people.

Ignorance compounded There is nothing here that will not evoke pitying smiles from historians.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The language evolved as a linguistic blend of local Prakrit, Sanskrit, and Persian during medieval India, added into by Arabic and Turkic influences. Developed in military camps and marketplaces, it became a common language across diverse communities. Its contributions from both Hindu and Muslim poets, reflecting a shared cultural heritage.

I am really grateful for this grounded and sensible post.

However, I would like to add that there is evidence that what evolved was Hindustani, and that Hindi was an 18th century cultural revisionist act, that artificially dredged Sanskrit or Prakrit words out of the common vocabulary and added lavishly to fill in the gaps. This was a parallel to the re-establishment of a political Hinduism that began with the Arya Samaj and ripened into the RSS in 1920.

 

[Joe Shearer]

However, there is a disconnect where it is claimed it was wiped out entirely (almost an implicit genetic erasure) by Aryans.

Something that needs to be emphasised. It is increasingly becoming clear that the migrants speaking Indo-Aryan encountered only the survivors of the IVC, living in debased urban and semi-urban surroundings.

Most of British drama presented as archaeology is laughable; the arrow of suspicion points to the Aryans indeed! Sir John has much to answer for.