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.