Araingang: Pakistani American nationalist and internet troll

Another BP Podcast is up. You can listen on LibsynAppleSpotify, and Stitcher (and a variety of other platforms). Probably the easiest way to keep up the podcast since we don’t have a regular schedule is to subscribe to one of the links above!

You can also support the podcast as a patron. The primary benefit now is that you get the podcasts considerably earlier than everyone else. This website isn’t about shaking the cup, but I have noticed that the number of patrons plateaued a long time ago.

In this episode, Akshar, Mukunda, and Razib discuss Pakistani and Indian nationalism with Araingang, a well-known Pakistani American nationalist on the internet. We talk about the influence of Sarvakar, the Pakistani focus on West Asia, and the inchoate nature of Pakistani nationalism.

0

223 Replies to “Araingang: Pakistani American nationalist and internet troll”

  1. Good podcast

    I want to expand on points which Araingang touched upon: Pakistanis look West and not East primarily because of Islam and not because of race. Especially after Independence of Bangladesh, the Pakistani establishment decided to look West and to increase the role of Islam in state matters to eliminate ethno nationalist separatism. You see Bhutto talking about Islamic socialism, inviting OIC leaders to Pakistan and playing greater role in the Muslim world. This policy has continued and many Pakistanis see themselves as Muslim first and Pakistanis second. Much of Pakistan is not even Indian, Pasthuns and Baloch are Iranic, Sindhis are extremely insular and both Punjabis and Muhajirs have adopted Islamic identity over their ethnic one a long time ago. So there is little incentive to look East or to engage with India. We dont identify with India in the west, we identify with being a (Pakistani) Muslim.

    Also I would agree with Araingang that in my opinion Bangladeshis hang out more with Pakistanis than Indians, and once again that’s because of Islam. Most of my Bangladeshi friends come from religious families and its very common to find common ground with Pakistanis on religion alone. However I did have an older middle aged collegue a decade back who did not like Pakistani and was very pro India, always had lunch with Indians. Needless to say he was an atheist. So perhaps both sides will have confirmation bias due to the divided nature of Bengali diaspora.

    Lastly I think Razib raised a point about Muhajirs resenting the fact that they aren’t badasses anymore.. I think thats found more amongst Muhajir diaspora in the West than Muhajirs in Pakistan. Muhajirs in the West might be more conscious about their ancestral roots being in a foriegn land especially interacting with Indians.. so they will appeal to that type of history more. Muhajirs in Pakistan are already at the top, they mostly care about ‘making Pakistan great’ and establishing a pan Pakistani identity rather than one based on ethnicity alone. Pakistan being ideological successor to Islamic rule in India is basically the ideology of Muhajirs that Punajbis have also internalized, which is why Pakistan refuses to fall into Indian orbit.

    1. Hi S Qureishi, don’t Muhajirs face discrimination in Pakistan (I’ve only heard offhand and that video of the party leader singing Saare Jahan Se Achchha)? It seems like they do have that overarching cultural import/dominance, but does it extend to societal/political? I could be completely off base tbh as I’m ignorant of that sphere.

      1. //It seems like they do have that overarching cultural import/dominance, but does it extend to societal/political?//

        It’s a complicated topic which I can’t do justice to in one post. Basically short answer is Yes they face discrimination, but its because we have done pretty well generally, which made other locals resentful. So starting from the 60’s, Military establishment started taking away their power, first by moving away to capital and thus all the good bureaucrat jobs. Sindhis introduced a quota system in Sindh to stop Muhajirs getting all the jobs, and the educational spots which they would have swept on merit. Later in the 70’s Bhutto nationalized all the industries harming Muhajir businessmen, these same industries were sold for peanuts to Punjabi industrialists later on during Zia’s privatization. So in a way Muhajirs were getting fucked over for doing too well, they kinda replied with MQM (which soon got out of hand and became a mafia organization).. LOng story short, Muhajirs still dominate the private sector these days, yet they don’t have a lot of political power. Since Pakistan’s national language is still Urdu, Muhajirs do still have an over representation in Urdu media so societal power is still there. This is just a brief summary. Too much nuances and details can’t be put here about this topic

          1. I wanted to use the Brahmin analogy but I didn’t because I don’t know Indian politics in that nuance and wondered if it would be correct or appropriate.

          2. Brahmin discrimination is exaggerated, perhaps like Mohajirs. In India every community feels they are the victim.

        1. yes this sounds like Brahmin-Bania parallel. I would say Bania parallel is best because Banias have a lot of commercial power but less political power outside of Amit Shah. Brahmins have both. So maybe Mohajirs of old were like Brahmins of Pak. Of new are like Banias.

          1. “ Banias have a lot of commercial power but less political power outside of Amit Shah“

            Even one Amit shah is enough 😉

    2. I just feel its interesting that Mohajirs made their own gang to take on Pathans and Punjabis. The upper crust Muslims of UP-Bihar are some of the most cultured folks i know.

      1. Punjabis and Pasthuns take pride in their “martial” culture, and they don’t respect those who aren’t martial. They considered Hindustanis as docile. So respect had to be earned, and thus it was after a couple of bloody decades. Unfortunately, it did put a damper on that ”cultured” image, but in my opinion, it was the need of the times.

        1. I live in the UK and Punjabis and Pashtuns are both docile against white and black guys, its easy to look tough in front of Indian people in the UK, but to look tough in front of skinheads and Jamaican yardies is different. The only type of south asians who generally show bravery in race riots and street fights are Mirpuris. Punjabis from both sides Pakistan and India adopt this persona of living in white suburban neighborhoods but still trying to act tough and black many times, its fact, the Punjabis and Pashtuns live in London and the Mirpuris live in the northern towns. You don’t even see Punjabis ever involved in any combat sports either, all boxers and street rioters are Mirpuris from Hamzah Sheeraz to Adam Azim. They brag about being tough but the first to claim some other races lineage. Obviously they hold this image with Indians and will not do with any other race

        1. My ex would have liked you.

          Her forever lament was that why I can’t act more and more Bong. I tried, and ate all fish i could. But there is a limit to which a UP-wala can act Bengali, notwithstanding my name. 😉

          1. If only, again my ex, especially her father who thought I am a bit plebeian , would have been very pleased 😄

  2. Average Hindutva/Modi/BJP/RSS supporter isn’t driven by Savarkar or Golwalkar’s in-depth views lol, most people don’t really have time for all that

    It’s just built on 2 interconnected (and obvious) things-
    1. Fear of what’ll happen as the muslim pop. grows
    2. The current state of non-muslims in PAK and BAN (and the history of islam in the subcontinent) and incidents in India

    And I think people are more likely to read Savarkar or Golwalkar AFTER they’ve been drawn towards Hindutva
    Their views and opinions are already kinda set at that point so I doubt it’ll make a big difference

      1. What he fails to get is that Sarvarker is no Mohammed to Hindutuva.And his work is not seen as the Koran. They are not seen by any means as infallible a perfect things to model your entire existence after. Islam views its main holy man and holy book like that, perfect and time immemorial. Hindutuva is more dynamic in its identity. But nitpicking the aspects that score good political points…priceless.

        1. Islam views its main holy man and holy book like that, perfect and time immemorial.

          sort of. but a minority of muslims demur on this (e.g., uncreated koran is not universal, e.g., ismaili).

          i think the main issue is that islam and hindutva conflation is a category error. hindutva is more like islamism. or perhans pakistani nationalism.

          1. Yeah. Pak Nationalism seems pretty apt. The Pak and Hindutuva reddits mirror each other quite well

      2. @Saurav

        We talk as if Savarkar is the root cause. Jinnah could not even make peace with Gandhi. The modus operandi of Muslims across the globe is simple ‘ hum toh hain hi kamine, jo ban pade kar le ‘ unapologetic aggression, assholery and communalism.

        If an off-putting thing is repeated over and over, you may think wtf? But the other guy does not relent then eventually people make peace with it. Two clear instances of this are color based discrimination in India for prospective arranged marriage candidates and the American numbness to industrial meat farming. Absolutely no beneficiaries, who consider themselves quite cultured, give a fuck about what is right in either case. People are not reasonable, beyond a point provocation has to be met with muscle on the street or battle field.

        Next is lying on your face. Say something ridiculous or haf-truth or manipulative then stare the other guy blankly. This takes many forms and is a regular tactic of nazariya chachas. For example, ‘ Sindhis are insular’ Manipuris are Insular, Burma ko de dein? ‘Punjabis have adopted islamic identity over ethnic one’, again think how ridiculous this statement is, is Islamic even an identity (in motherland not as expats)? ‘little incentive to look at India to the east’ Don’t play 2010s Bollywood songs at weddings, go to afghanistan for lever transplants and vaccines, you guys are already marrying Chinis.

        Being reductionist: people rioted and voted to maximize their benefits, hog power and take away disproportionate amount of India’s land. Millions of people died and the current generation has to justify what has happened. There are no great stories available and hence the nazariya and the tactical ‘so-what?’ blank face, something that also comes up when justifying the prophet(pbuh).

          1. Point out my dumbness clearly so I can learn something or just keep your distance. Interpreting your smug sniggering gets tiring after a time.

          2. Look I am clearly your fan boy. I am much younger than you and don’t have much education/training in reasoning or articulating clearly. I am certain almost everyone would have struggled to come as far as I have from where I started. I have been trying to contain my stupidity, affecting, hyperventilation and rudeness as has been pointed out by you and others here.

            If you point some basic fault in my reasoning I will change what I think. If something is in bad taste I will apologize. That’s the whole point in seeking out better men to learn. I would appreciate it if you are didactic rather than ridiculing.

        1. //, ‘ Sindhis are insular’ Manipuris are Insular, Burma ko de dein?//

          Dey do, hamain kiya? Konsa tumhara hai?

          I grew up in Sindh, I know how Sindhis are. They are the most chilled with Hindus and Hinduism, but they are the least likely to ”play bollywood songs on their weddings”, or care about India. For them, Sindh is their motherland, not Punjab, not India and even Pakistan is an afterthought. There is a reason why out of four provinces in Pakistan, only Sindh has Sindhi as official language alongside Urdu. Sindhis also tend to immigrate less and even if they do, they are likely to move back to Pakistan than other ethnic groups in Pakistan.

          //‘Punjabis have adopted islamic identity over ethnic one’, again think how ridiculous this statement is, is Islamic even an identity (in motherland not as expats)?//

          Islam is definitely an identity. Ask most Punjabis (in Pakistan) whether they are Pakistani first, Punjabi first or Muslim first, and they will say they are Muslim first, then Pakistani, then Punjabi. You will find the same sentiment in other parts of Pakistan as well.

          //‘little incentive to look at India to the east’ Don’t play 2010s Bollywood songs at weddings, go to afghanistan for lever transplants and vaccines, you guys are already marrying Chinis.//

          Two things: Lahore and Karachi do not make whole of Pakistan, most Pakistanis are not that good at Urdu and Bollywood movies (which are seen as Urdu movie industy, and less an Indian movie industry) were not as popular in the rural areas as you are led to believe.
          Secondly, Bollywood popularity is on the decline in Pakistan now, when you compare it to the 80’s and the 90’s when it was at its peak. There are many other sources of entertainment now that were not available before.

          Lastly, most Pakistanis don’t really think much about India unless they are playing cricket, watching bollywood or when LOC has flared up and India is on the news. I found that when I moved to the West, I stopped playing cricket, stopped watching Bollywood altogether and found that I had no idea what was going on in India for years until recently. This is also what Araingang mentioned in the podcast which I agree with, people don’t care much about India in Pakistani politics as Indians care about Pakistan when it comes to Indian politics – this is very true. Slagging off India does not get any Pakistani politician extra brownie points.

          //people rioted and voted to maximize their benefits, hog power and take away disproportionate amount of India’s land. Millions of people died and the current generation has to justify what has happened.//

          Land belongs to those who live on it and can actually defend it. Modern nation states are just modern concepts, there was no sovereign nation of India before 1947. You can talk about 5000 year old Indian civilization, Hindu civilization, Sanskrit civilization etc etc, it does not matter because those things do not really provide sovereignty in modern times, guns, ammunitions, missiles and armies willing to use them do. Indians became Pakistanis, Pakistanis became Bangladeshis – shit happens, we learn to live with that, I think you should too!

          1. While what @S Qureishi says is true; but being violent, shameless is a slippery slope. As it is rightly said: For every bully, there is a bigger bully. This behavior is a recipe for disaster:

            How China treats Uighurs is well known; shaming Europeans for Islamophobia — all the while stoking resentments — will soon start giving diminishing, and perhaps even negative, results; even majority muslim countries are not exempt — with ISIS emerging as the biggest killer of the community; also true for generally every country where muslims live.

            Hope sense prevails.

  3. I hear an accent in his voice. He claims fo have grown up “white washed,” but did he grow up in Pak at all?

          1. that could explain it. He has some sort of S Asian/Mexican twang to his english. Interesting. I wonder if people mistake him for Latino. Probably, given how often it happens in S Asians

  4. Idk, I know enough Mohajirs, including about 10 Aga Khan grads. They 100% bring up racial issues and Punjabi “arrogance.” Maybe they might tell an Indian that and not others, not sure. These were people who opened up after hours of working with them or after being friends with them for some time in school.

    They also agree “Indian looks” are considered ugly in Pak and “indian looking” mohajirs are considered to be the ugliest people of Pak, granted darker skin and less west eurasian features are considered ugly through the whole subcontinent; this is non unique.

    1. You look at every issue from race perspective, especially Steppe vs AASI aspect, which I find limits your understanding. Muhajirs are mostly high caste converts or have foreign ancestry so they don’t exactly look that different from Pak Punjabis and are certainly not darker. However Muhajirs are also a varied group from all over India, so it is true that darker = considered less attractive, and this is not different in Pakistan. A lot of Punjabis and Sindhis are very dark too, especially the peasants. They have little AASI when compared to Iran_N but still considered unattractive. So it’s not just race/genetics.

      //They 100% bring up racial issues and Punjabi “arrogance.”//

      You will find that most Muhajirs have ”issues” with pretty much all ethnic groups, because all ethnic groups are present in Karachi in significant numbers and each have their own culture, which often clashes with Muhajirs. You will find that in the last 40 years, Muhajirs have squared off with Punjabis, with Pashtuns, with Sindhis and with Balochis, often times militantly.

      Drawing room discussions will blame ”Punjabis” for causing the big problems in Pakistan (Punjabis here actually refer to the military and feudal establishment that is dominated by elite Punjabis). There is also a Lahore vs Karachi element to it, Karachi (where Muhajirs reside) is neglected even though it pays all the taxes and generates all the revenue, while huge sums of money is spent building up Lahore’s infrastructure when it pays very little tax.

      Politically too, without doing well in Punjab, no party can form government, this is not the Punjabis fault since they are the majority but since they elect the governments , when things go wrong, they get the blame as well. This is natural.

      This is just politics, nothing to do with race.

      The ethnicity Muhajirs have an actual beef with are Sindhis, they are polar opposite in culture of Muhajirs and both live in Sindh. Even here, it’s not ‘race based’ but cultural and political clash. Read up on Karachi politics from the 60’s onwards if you wanna know the dynamics.

      1. Thanks. Fair points. But agree to disagree. Even upper castes of gangetic plain are a good 10-20% more AASI on average compared to Birdari Pakistani. So I can imagine the average mohajir to be a bit darker and less west eurasian looking than the average birdari punjabi. Granted, the non dalit- non birdari sindhi/punjabi Pakistanis are still significant enough in population, so I would imagine the average mohajir falls into line somewhere there with phenotype. The foreign ancestry stuff is either an outright lie or massively exaggerated. Very few S Asian Muslims have significant foreign ancestry. Groups that fit within the way mohajirs can pass within Pak are in the hundreds of millions aggregate (probably 20-25% of India has the aasi, steppe, and iranic in a ratio where a good portion of people can pass among diversity of indic pak quite well).

        If what you are saying has a modicum of truth and racialism is not as big of a deal, as I am thinking, then it is good. Gives me hope for all of S Asia to leave behind the racialism and colorism of the past. The martial nonsense is annoying. This idea that courage is related so much to blood for an entire group of people is quite weird and parallels caste thinking quite well. Caste is fundamentally tribalism in the end, with each tribe thought to be endowed with certain stereotypical roles. That type of thinking is anti meritocratic, pigeon holes the individual, and just leads to societal strife, when things get hairy 2/2 to growing constant divisions.

        Pak has enough of a Nazi parallel past with genocidal campaign in Bengal with millions dead and raped and known generals and leaders talking about raping their way to “aryanization” of the local population. I am happy, if this has improved.

        1. OT but millions of dead in Bengal is an invented figure for PR purposes. Pak army and its collaborators were not organised\effective enough to do that much killing.

          1. Figure of 3 million is not just propaganda.
            Prof.Rummel has specialised over 30 years in studying human deaths, genocides and democides. the last category means deaths of more than a million. He has put BD killings by pak Army in that category

            http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP8.HTM
            His conclusion “After a well organized military buildup in East Pakistan the military launched its campaign. No more than 267 days later they had succeeded in killing perhaps 1,500,000 people, created 10,000,000 refugees who had fled to India, provoked a war with India, incited a counter-genocide of 150,000 non-Bengalis, and lost East Pakistan.”
            3 million is also the BD gov’s official estimate
            1.5 (or 3 million) in 267 days is one of the most heinous killings in history , in the category of PolPot or Hitler

          2. Millions of dead over 9 months in BD is not an invented figure. It is the figure given by BD govt to the International Warcrimes Tribunal.
            Academics soecialising in this area also beleive it
            for example Prof Rummel has worked for many deacdes . His figure 1.5 million
            http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP8.HTM

            “After a well organized military buildup in East Pakistan the military launched its campaign. No more than 267 days later they had succeeded in killing perhaps 1,500,000 people, created 10,000,000 refugees who had fled to India,”
            He calls it democide i.e. killing on a very large scale

          3. @VijayVan

            You have quoted a figure which is an order of magnitude higher than those by people who were actually in the region, Not sure how much research Rummel did to justify his figure, certainly does not seem like he actually relied on field research. Did he visit Bangladesh at all? The chapter posted is a litany of which estimates he tossed in and out in accordance with what he thought seemed reasonable.

            Per the chapter:

            “Beneath the consolidated overall toll I show my calculation from the partial estimates (line 81). These are rather close. Consolidating both ranges, I give a final estimate of Pakistan’s democide to be 300,000 to 3,000,000, or a prudent 1,500,000 (line 82). ”

            LOL. An estimate that wide is meaningless.

            3 million is widely recognised to be a fake figure, it comes from Mujib confusing lakhs for millions in an interview.

            https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/24/mujib-confusion-on-bangladeshi-deaths

            Sarmila Bose, an Oxford academic who is the grand-niece of SC Bose, arrived at a figure of 100,000 for combatant and non-combatant deaths.

            https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/21/ian-jack-bangladesh-war-genocide

      2. Many passing among Pakis unnoticed tho is quite fair. There is range in diversity. I look like a typical Indian dude, but I don’t think I would look massively out of place either, and I have rather middling genetics at N Indian vaishya/ S Indian Brahmin average. I can pass quite well in Bengal too.

        The thing is stereotypes are not necessarily based on these overlaps. They are based on extremes. This is one way I can see your argument working. The mohajirs on one extreme will be quite dark and east eurasian looking but other end will be opposite, perhaps equally or more extremely on that spectrum than even Birdari Punjabis. The competing images of the two will settle the reality.

        Same way I have been to the gym enough in the diaspora and most Indians, no matter what type aren’t particularly big or strong. Mos are average, skinny, obese, or have only very modest amount of muscle on frame. But extremes of Punjabis are super extreme because their distribution is shifted bit more right bone structure wise; hence the the tail produces more people proportionally and the stereotype comes from the tail as do the athletes.

        But the overlap between groups is still extremely large.

      3. Anyway, on one hand you deemphasize race, and one the other you went on a long rationalization as to your beauty hierarchy with Pashtuns conveniently on the top of S Asia, that too, and more importantly, arguing for awhile that is more than just opinion but a matter of objective fact as a 100m sprint time difference. This alone has me questioning your views on the racial dynamic. You seem quite entrenched in it yourself with how you features and skin color in an aesthetic hierarchy as objective as the passing of time.

        Nonetheless, your points on political clashes seem interesting. I shall investigate further.

        1. I dont believe all races/ethnic groups are the same, and I think there are objective grounds on which ethnic/racial groups are better or worse “physically” speaking. For example if Jatts or Scandinavians are shown to have a genetic predisposition to be tall, then I’m not gonna deny it because of politics or history. Im also not gonna say that height doesn’t make a difference in attractiveness level of a mate, especially that of a male
          My assertion is not political but I am definitely interested in the politics of race/ethnicity.

          I also don’t think that these physical differences make any difference in the value of the human being. Humans are complicated and there are so many ways to achieve superiority than just physical beauty or strength.

          I wanted to provide an example of myself that just because I consider some other rival group as “generally” better looking on average does not mean that I consider myself inferior.. because there are always other things one excels at, and even if one has no things that they excel at, perhaps one could strive to achieve something to feel proud about.

          That’s about it. I dont think this makes me racist, just accepting reality.

          1. nice straw man. the issue I had was with how you presented it like it was some sort of scientific reality like the laws of physics. that was the issue. you backtracked there, so I am happy.

            These things have way more nuance and grey area than you are thinking. But your assertion of the classical S Asian racial model of beauty to me as some sort of physical science fact rather than something subjective and highly variable and environmental, tells me where you stand in terms of racialist thinking. You also haven’t read adequately on how foreigners tend to be perceived as ugly or weird looking, when encountered by new people. There are exceptions, but they are uncommon. And they tend to only be groups that look mostly similar but with slight differences. The other exception is that the group somehow luckily resembles by pure hapstance how the Gods were described of the other group (blue eyes in Cortez like the Aztec god).

            Not all groups are the same in every way. For sure, differences exist between groups. But beauty is not something clearly measurable and constant as height. There is a ton of granularity for it. And you over-simply it and mischaracterize it with something as well characterized and universally objective as height or length, a mere characteristic of our natural world.

            And no one is commenting on height differences not existing. We all agree they do between group averages. Now the beauty attributable towards height, well even that is variable. there are reasons selection pressures lead to certain situations. it is conceivable, for shorter height to be considered better for survival and then carry a connotation of “more beautiful” too.

            What is better what is worse? Pygmies in their rainforest environment were selected to be shorter. It worked out that way. Relative sexual dimorphism tends to be seen as attractive but there is a reason it became less common in some societies. Fat women are considered hotter during famine. To a pygmy a 6’4 man, who is considered attractive for height in the West, may be perceived as an 8’0 tall person would be by us, just strange appearing. The only universal beauty norm for height tends to be males being about say 8-10% taller on average.

          2. Also show me evidence of Jatts predisposed to being tall. Punjab has Jatts as the majority ethnic group. In India, the average height is 5’7 in Punjab, the same as Kerela. The average height Sikhs in secular heights survey is 5’7 (170cm), the same as Jains. And most Sikhs are of Birdari origin. Birdari groups are the majority Pak population of the UK. Many are 2nd or 3rd generation. They are not massively tall.

            Once again, you rely heavily on stereotypes and buy into bravado of these groups. Facts on the ground have not beared out in this way. Show many any evidence they have the 6’0 average height of Scandinavian men. Don’t make stuff up without data. They have not been shown in any study to be among the tallest in the world.

            You don’t rely on empiricism at all. You just cite the same stereotypes and do thought experiments with tons of holes consistently.

            https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/156482651103200103#:~:text=The%20average%20heights%20of%20adult,in%20some%20of%20the%20states.&text=001)%20and%20women%20(r%20%3D%200.63%2C%20p%20%3C%20.

            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3190178/

            “During 1972 body measurements including height, weight, limb circumferences, skeletal diameters and skinfolds were taken on 100 unrelated and healthy Jat-Sikh men of 17 to 25 years of age, belonging to different areas of Punjab, India. The average height and weight of Jat-Sikhs is 170.4 cm and 54.5 kg, respectively. The mean Heath-Carter somatotype is 3.22-3.40-4.11. The majority of somatotypes is concentrated in endo-ectomorph and meso-ectomorph sectors of the somatochart. Comparisons with recently described data on females of the same area and population show significant sex differences in various body measurements except for the bicristal diameter. The females possess significantly more subcutaneous fat. For the rest of the measurements, the males have higher values. The Jat-Sikh males are comparable in height and weight to the contemporary pooled Punjabi, but are distinctly taller than the neighbouring populations of Himachal Pradesh and pooled all India samples. However, they are comparatively smaller and lighter as compared to European and American populations.”

            Before you say anything more about the year, this is post green revolution. Then you will say how the kids then were not grown. But even now average height in Punjab is 5’7. And researchers say that was average height of neighboring groups now. Then you will go into confounders of migrants, yet the same height trends still prevail. These people were well fed then and they are now, being farmers. they aren’t that tall on average.

          3. Ok I dont really think short male pygmies in the rainforest or fat women during famine can compare to general human habitat which is not the rain forest nor is affected by famines every now and then. But I digress, as Razib mentioned nobody wants to discuss, least of all me. I frankly understand how discussing physical differences has such a charged history in the US so I dont blame you. Lets agree to disagree on that count.

          4. S Quereishi
            Ok I dont really think short male pygmies in the rainforest or fat women during famine can compare to general human habitat which is not the rain forest nor is affected by famines every now and then.

            One of places you can compare and contrast is Sri Lanka and Keralite. I dont think Lankas are high on the looks dept, being very dark, and short.

            However, if you look around US and UK, high proportion of Sri Lankans are married outside their community. Personal anecdotal data, 30 percent of school mates, uni mates and relatives are married to non Sri Lankans including Afro Americans. Thats the older generatio, people who now past 60.

            Heck my SO is a blonde and been together for 15 years. Its not like I am loaded either, SO supports my cash flow.
            https://imgur.com/hzYyda5

            I attribute this to Lankans being less insular, more accepting of other cultures compared to Indians and Pakistanis. Being generally pleasant, not too chauvinistic probably add to being attractive as a mate. So maybe looks are not everything.

          5. @sbarrkum

            I am the only one here saying continuously that ”looks aren’t everything” and that just because one group is better looking does not mean much. Only difference is I am not in denial about physical differences between groups of humans and how it pertains to our beauty standards.

            I don’t know why I am being misconstrued. Regardless, this is a useless discussion.

          6. @thewarlock, the study you posted does not seem to include caste demographics on sikhs. Jatt sikhs happen to be just 25% of the population. A large percentage of sikhs are Mazhabi (erstwhile dalits) who happen to be short like dalits elsewhere. What does that say about Jatt Sikh Height. Could be roughly around 6’0

          7. @warlock “”Facts on the ground have not beared out in this way. Show many any evidence they have the 6’0 average height of Scandinavian men. Don’t make stuff up without data. They have not been shown in any study to be among the tallest in the world.””

            What is considered tall is relative to the surroundings. Punjabis are tallest group in the link you posted, out of all Indian states. Jatt may be even taller than Punjabi average. So in India, they are definitely tall. Nordics are tallest in their surrounding, with the exception of Netherlands (and this is a very weird exception)

            Regardless, my point is, max height potential is inherited. Proper diet during adulthood only helps fulfill this potential. The potential can change after a few generations of environmental adaptation or sexual selection. But you can’t force feed a terrier to make it outgrow an Alsatian.

          8. Once again, strawman…

            Read the discussion below. Jatt height is Exagerrated! You juxtaposed them with Scandavanians. Also, Jains and Sikhs have same average. Kerelites and Punjabis have same average. The difference is a couple inches AT MOST. And you have no data to show id Punjabi Dalits ar short because of wealth or mot or even if they are short.

            Even the 1970s, survey I posted show Jats are NOT taller than surrounding populations in Punjab. Just read the abstract. Even if I give you benefit of the doubt abd put them at 5’8 or 5’9, how the hell is that tall.

            And you never provided any data for your beauty standards being as objective as the passing of time. You just assert to try to make me think its true. That doesn’t work. You have an opinion and you magically want it to be a fact.

            And you refused to contend with the fact that, I showed you ecamples of differences in standards in different contexts. Look up tribal studies. Men tend to prefer soin slightly lighter than themselves and women slightly lighter. That all changes to much lighter no matter what in Indian context, with record skin lightening bought by men and women. Why? CULTURE! Culture because of history and how these traits presented at different frequencies by dominant groups makes a massive diff.

            But keep ignoring facts and histories. And keep simply asserting a narrative with BS thought experiments and hoping anyone with any modicum of an emperical mind will accept it.

          9. ” Jatt height is Exagerrated! You juxtaposed them with Scandavanians. .”

            What do u mean, Jat aren’t Scandanvains? My whole life, a lie

  5. On Hindutva formative figures and their importance:

    Its true most Hindus do not read Savarkar/Golwalkar before becoming Hindu Nationalists. By the same token, most Muslims do not read Ibn Taymiyyah before becoming Salafists. However, the elites who indoctrinate the masses in these ideologies do read these figures, revere them, and consider their work to be a direct continuation of what their gurus started all those years ago. Therefore, any serious attempt to understand these ideologies requires an appraisal of these figures. Is that sufficient for understanding these modern movements? No. But its the first and most important step.

    Calling myself “white-washed” was maybe not accurate. “Americanized” would be a better way to put it.

    1. I think we can point out a difference here – Hindutva doesn’t rest on theology as the Ibn Taymiyyah example or even I would argue Islamism. The only theological parallel I can see is that Hindutva has diversity in thought which mirrors Hinduism (there is a vigorous internal debate about how “Hindutva” should proceed and be defined within Hindutva itself). Otherwise, Hindutva borrows aesthetics (symbols, heroes, etc…) and some “pluralist” Ekam Sat arguments from Hinduism but theological concepts borrowed a la Sharia with Islamism just seemed to be limited to cow slaughter (and there are Hindutvadis who oppose a ban on cow slaughter too…and even eat beef lol). Dharmashashtras are too diverse and contradicting to apply.

      There is also the fact that Hindutva is primarily a subaltern movement, further diminishing elite importance.

    2. You can make a cartoon of them without fear of getting beheaded. The type of esteem they are held in is quite different.

    3. Actually, Gowalkar’s book (“We”) was disavowed in 2006.

      In any case, I cannot recall seeing it mentioned in any right-of-center article or account I have read. I think you are dramatically overindexing on its importance.

      I actually read the book. It’s dorm-room level ramblings from a guy with an impressionistic understanding of Europe. No wonder it doesn’t exactly have the status of a revelation.

      1. …. in addition to that, both Savarkar’s and Upadhyay’s integral humanism are the foundation texts. Upadhyay’s work is straight planarization. While Savarkar work might have been good in the 30s and 40s, it was hardly path breaking.

        This has helped the Hindu-right in other ways though, that they don’t have a strict foundational text and are more malleable.

        1. There’s a fair bit of revisionism when it comes to Savarkar. He was not a straight up Hindutva rabble rouser as many today would have you believe.

          He had admirers on the left and his views were contested on the right.

          Here’s an interesting interview of Vikram Sampath, Savarkar’s biographer.

          https://jacobinmag.com/2019/10/vinayak-damodar-savarkar-chaturvedi-hindutva-bjp-modi-hindu-nationalism

          “But there are two figures that illustrate the Indian left’s early engagement with Savarkar.

          One is Bhagat Singh, who was a revolutionary figure who was arrested and then executed in 1931. To become a member of Singh’s organization, the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association, he required individuals to read three books: one was The ABC of Communism, another was a book on the IRA, and the third book was The Life of Barrister Savarkar. So, in a sense, Savarkar’s life story was being elevated by the Left already in the 1920s.

          The other figure at the time is M. N. Roy. Roy had an illustrious life as a revolutionary, was one of the founders of the Mexican Communist Party, debated Lenin, and so on. When he finds out that Savarkar is going to be released as a political prisoner in 1937 and that there is going to be a reception committee and a parade that goes around the state of today’s Maharashtra to celebrate Savarkar’s release, Roy asks if he can introduce him.

          So there are these descriptions of Roy bowing, touching Savarkar’s feet, describing Savarkar as a childhood hero that he had read about and had long admired.”

    4. @ArainGang
      Were you born (or migrated as a child )in the US? or did you go there as a young man ? ‘Americanized’ implies a process overlaid on a previous nationality

    5. @Araingang it looks like you do a lot of Muslim Muslim…. Pakistan Pakistan… FYI, concept of Pakistan was not present before 1930s, you people became Islamised or proper Muslim in last 130 yrs ( after 1870s) when British started the religious discourse through Syed Ahmad Khan, and their Congress Counterparts. Most of you were nominal Muslim ( MINO- Muslim in name only with native culture). This is true for today’s Muslims belonging to the Jatts/Jats, Gujjars, Rajputs, Arain ( Sorry converts from Sainis) etc groups. I would request you to analyse your surnames you would find a lot of overlaps with your much hated counterparts on the East. For @S Qureshi , he is Qureshi real ones or not I don’t know… I have seen many Qureshi here in India and all of them are nothing but locals ( rest they can decide whose imaginary descendants they are from Middle East).

      1. News for you: I am not ”Quereishi”, its a pseudo name. And how do you define ‘”nominal” Muslim?

  6. Good to have ArainGang here – havent listened to the podcast yet will do today or tmrw- but I genuinely feel we lack pakistani commentators here. Our old Pakistani friend was too prone to SJW behavior to be intelligent at most times.

      1. One difference between PakNationalists in BP nd Indnats is that the former are US nationals as I understand, mostly born and brought up in the US . The Indian contributors, many of them , are in India . So, as long you don’t live in a countrty, you don’t have skin in the game to make the country better

  7. There are 2 aspects which i think there is some non acceptance on either side.

    A. Hindutva vs Muslim nationalism. Their are aspects where both movements have some redeeming/egalitarian parts, vis-v the other, but overall both are same. All these are just semantics.

    B. Who seems more obsessed. Indians about Pakistan or vice-versa. Here again there is exaggeration on either side, fueled by media. Neither Pakistan of the old, nor India of now is ‘that’ obsessed about each other. These countries hardly interact or know much about each other since there is not much overlap of ethnicities or communities. Just like Pakistanis are reminded of India due to Bollywood or Cricket, Indians (mostly North only) remembers Pakistan only when there is something in Kashmir etc. Apart from that unless there is a war, neither side features that much in each other politics. Hindtuva has enough Muslims within India for politics, and doesn’t really ‘need’ Pakistan

    1. Fully agreed

      And this is the correct way to go about it, its good fantasizing how things would have turned out if partition had not happened, I personally think the Cabinet Mission plan was the best compromise given the circumstances, but then shit happened and now we have to live with it. I feel too much importance is given to 1947 as if everything would have turned out good if that didn’t happen. Not the case. We could on the other hand fantasize about what if 1857 went the other way, all this discussion would be funny then. Would India really have been united? How many states would have sprung from that? All interesting questions but meaningless if we are to move into the future.

      1. Kashmir current LOCs need to be made permanent borders between all three parties involved.

        For India, final step is uniform civil code. Once that is done, it’s fine. There has to be focus though primarily on market liberalization and privatization. These riots that are pushing for welfare need to be dealt with a civil manner but cannot be allowed to change the legislative and executive mandate the government has from the consent of the governed. One community cannot have the degree of veto power these rioters think they have. Economically, we all know those subsidies are a bad idea.

        In the end, RAW has to stop supporting Balochi separatists and Pak Kashmiri and Khalistani ones and China naxalites. I think in the end, China will be a bigger barrier to stability. I don’t think they want a stable India. They think India is too ambitious and also too US aligned. They know for now they are stronger than India militarily and economically but don’t want to give it even a chance India could get its act together and thus throw in wrenches constantly. At least, that is my view of CCP plan. Also, if India can get its act together at all, that remains to be seen. The overly federalist system in India has served well so far in maintaining relative peace, given such diverse situations in other places lead to much more death and destruction on average, but has slowed development quite a bit.

      2. ” I personally think the Cabinet Mission plan was the best compromise given the circumstances, but then shit happened and now we have to live with it”

        I have heard this, but more and more i am convinced it was a band-aid which would have led to even bigger issues down the road. At least in 47 ,Hindus and Muslims didn’t actually held power ,and sort of looked at Brits to be a neutral arbitrator. We would have suffered an even more bloody partition (optimistic solution) or a permanent civil war, had it happened once the Brits left.

        1. It worked out ok. Only two things would have been better and both likely not feasible

          1. Complete population transfer OR

          2. Secular dictator who dereligionized the region forcefully and integrated into a soviet type union but somehow managed to pull off china economic miracle of good transition to market economy, despite one party state. Just don’t see this fairy tale working out well for S Asia

  8. can we not start talking about how some groups are or aren’t naturally good-looking or whatever? no one will talk about the podcast soon enough

    1. I apologize. Sometimes, I falsely see that “Om” in the sky and put on my Wuhan-bat suit to do my job as the whisperer.

      1. if this querishi guy was american-born/raised i would give you more slack. but a lot of these brownland ppl are naturally racist to our way of looking at the world, but they don’t mean anything by it, and they honestly can’t understand why you are butthurt.

        it’s like a gay man sucking a dick. you might think “gross!” but for them sucking a dick is natural and they can’t understand why anyone would object. (you can flip for straight eats getting down on a woman from a gay perspective)

        1. fair points. and yes I agree the discussions are dumb. I’ll avoid them and try to be more understanding about the differences in cultural milieu

  9. (you can flip for straight eats getting down on a woman from a gay perspective)
    even from straight perspective for many 😛

  10. For most Indians, Pakistan is an abstract concept. A black box of sorts.

    No one really cares for what happens inside there. The only thing people care about is that the country has a lot of nuisance value for India.

    There’s Kashmir and then there’s the memory of terrorist attacks through the 2000s. And then there’s the random news about treatment of minorities in Pakistan.

    That’s about it.

    We don’t play Pakistan in cricket anymore.
    Most people don’t care for Pakistani culture. Coke Studio might be popular with some of the urbanites but not beyond that.

    So when you see someone use ‘Go to Pakistan’ it doesn’t mean he knows anything about Pakistan. The country is just a placeholder term for any place that’s not India. Similar to someone in Urdu/Hindi saying ‘jahannum mein jao’.

    I feel like Pakistanis generally know much more about India than vice versa, even if most of that knowledge comes from sources that validate their biases like Wire or NYT/WaPo.

    Might have to do with the fact that there are as many Muslims in India as Pakistan so there’s some kindred feeling. Plus the fact that India generally has an order of magnitude more media produced about it than Pakistan, both internally and externally.

    IMO Pakistanis looking towards west is a good thing. As long as the borders are demarcated and they don’t send in random terrorists, both countries would do well to go their separate ways. We might meet again in a hundred years when we are more mature.

    1. //I feel like Pakistanis generally know much more about India than vice versa, even if most of that knowledge comes from sources that validate their biases like Wire or NYT/WaPo.//

      This is correct when speaking about Pakistanis, but I think this is because of Bollywood, not because of journalism. Bollywood projects a soft image for India abroad. Indians I have met knew very little about what is going inside Pakistan, they just see it as a monolithic entity.

      1. in the usa the less said about pk the better. all that matters to us is terrorism hideouts.

        bangladesh for a while was just a basketcase. the image has changed due to its export sector that has some relevance to americans.

        obv many pk ppl lead normal lives and are not touched by terrorism. but we don’t see that or hear that here.

        1. I don’t think Americans know much about the world either, let alone Pakistan.

          I remember stopping at a Macy’s on my drive back from NYC. Chatted with the cashier, this middle aged lady in the middle of Pensylvania, told her we going to Toronto, Canada. She asked whether it’s snowing there these days. I said no. Because it was the middle of August. And this conversation took place 3 hours drive from Toronto, 2 hours drive from the Canadian border.

          I found that Europeans are more caught up with the rest of the world affairs. Americans are isolated due to geography.

          1. “I found that Europeans are more caught up with the rest of the world affairs. Americans are isolated due to geography.”

            Some of this insularity is found in land-locked north India as well.

            Brings to mind a Borges quote on why it’s better to belong to a small nation. Unfortunately, can’t find it right now.

        2. There was the famout TIME magazine headline that we discussed in English class in junioe high school

          “The most dangerous country in the world isn’t Iraq. It’s Pakistan.”

          A couple years later Bin Laden was found and killed there. Pak, at least where I grew up, was mostly just seen as an Islamic version of India with massive terrorism issues.

  11. @thewarlock, the study you posted does not seem to include caste demographics on sikhs. Jatt sikhs happen to be just 25% of the population. A large percentage of sikhs are Mazhabi (erstwhile dalits) who happen to be short like dalits elsewhere. What does that say about Jatt Sikh Height. Could be roughly around 6’0

    FALSE!

    the average jatt male is 6’5 and has a 12 inch pink cock!

    1. Punjab has among the best malnutrition stats (among lowest rates) in the subcontindnt. Look up those states. And their HDI is high not middling lmfao. They are ranked 9/36 with only Goa, Kerla, and Himchal better and the rest are small union terrotories. Dig deeper and don’t lie. They still arent’t tall. Look up protein comsumption map by state. I won’t research for you. Punjab is fine for that, despite being vegetarian.

      Again, for the 100th time, vegetarian diet doesn’t limit anything, protein held equal. Dairy consumption is a massive equalizer. Again you straw man. Meat isn’t magical. Look at Pak. Better that India on hunger index. They eat more meat. But are 5’7 on average? Thess Birdadi groups aren’t massively taller on average. Again it is a couple inches at MOST, maybe less when controlling for for nutrition (ie Kerela). The small average shifts their distribition to the right a bit so their tail is fatter among the taller heights. That is where the streotypes ars drawn from.

      Show me evidence they are tall beyond anecdote. You can’t. They are not the average 6’0 men they claim. And btw Jatts are among the richest land owners.

      Jatts are 25% of Punjab but 50% of Sikhs. Even if Mahzabhjs are 5’6 or hell 5’5, jatts are only 5’8 or 5’9 on average. Look at that stats. It is a 170cm average height for ALL sikhs in secular height survey. And btw, study from the 70s show Jatts were NOT taller than surrounding Indian population in Punjab at the time, that includes Mahzhabi Sikhs. Once again, you make shit up and refuse to look at data.

      And you refuse to contend with your previous ludicrous pairing with Scandanavian height. You stawman and lie over and over again.

    2. I legit linked the one. Please go to the by religion breakdown. Learn to read. I see you clicl on literally 0 of the links I post to literature. Now, I see your allergy to data once again.
      Sikhs and JAINs are 170cm. Table 3. Just to make it easy for you. Scroll a bit.

      That alone DESTROYs meat and height assumption trends for S Asia. And Sikhs and Jains have comparable homelessness rates.

      Whether it is rich states (Kerela and Punjab) or rich religious groups (Jains and Sikhs), the great equalizer is money. That is it. And again Jatts are 50% of Sikhs yet Sikhs average 170cm. Heck I’d argue average Jatt Sikhs is now 5’8 and that tol MAYBE because Punjab 1970s survey showed they were NOT taller than surrounding groups (read the abstract even) and that would include Mahzabhis at the time too.

      https://www.statista.com/statistics/678920/highest-wealth-index-by-religion-india/

      Highest wealth index share across households in India in 2014, by religion
      Wealth index
      Jain 55.7%
      Sikhism 54.3%
      Christianity 24.4%
      Islam 20.9%
      Hindu 20.3%
      No religion 17.1%
      Buddhism 16.6%
      Others 8.2%

    3. Please learn to read go to Table 3 on that survey you posted. I listed the SAME one above. I can tell you don’t like to read thr data I post now. Once again you mostly rely on straw man,lying, or cursory glance of literature in a manner that fits your view and that’s the most you seem to do.

      Jain men and Sikh men are both 170cm on average. This ruins two of your arguments. #1 is vegetarian one. Because some Sikhs do eat meat, yet almost no Jains do. #2 Your Jat nonsense. Because a 5’7 average, when 50% of Sikhs are Jats (Punjab is 50% Sikh and 50 Hindu and 50% of the Sikhs are Jat), then their average would be like 5’8, EVEN if the Mazahbis are 5’6 on average which is even contentious because the data from the other study I linked said Jats WERE NOT taller than immediately surrounding populations in Punjab.

      They are no where near tall on averags by any Western standards. They are tall in perhaps Indian context.

      But even then the whole trend is West to East and Rich vs. Poor. Kerela and Punjab are the tallest states and Jains and Sikhs the richest religious groups.
      Highest wealth index share across households in India in 2014, by religion

      Wealth index
      Jain 55.7%
      Sikhism 54.3%
      Christianity 24.4%
      Islam 20.9%
      Hindu 20.3%
      No religion 17.1%
      Buddhism 16.6%
      Others 8.2%
      https://www.statista.com/statistics/678920/highest-wealth-index-by-religion-india/

    4. Table 3 Sikhs and Jains are same averages in the link you posted. I also posted it above. Sikhs eat more eat. Only thing in common is sikhs are jains are rich. Same with Punjab and Kerela. Average is only 170cm. About 50% of Sikhs are Jats. Abstract in the 1970s survey even showed jats were 5’7 then and NOT taller than surrounding populations in Punjab, and of course that includes Mahzahbis. Even if you want to make Mahzabhis 5’6, then what a 5’8 jatt average?

      Wealth is key

      Highest wealth index share across households in India in 2014, by religion
      Wealth index
      Jain 55.7%
      Sikhism 54.3%
      Christianity 24.4%
      Islam 20.9%
      Hindu 20.3%
      No religion 17.1%
      Buddhism 16.6%
      Others 8.2

      Google that index.

      Another set of studies cited here

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.hindustantimes.com/india-news/delhi-and-punjab-richest-states-jain-wealthiest-community-national-survey/story-sakdd3MBOfKhU2p5LrNVUM_amp.html

      Jains and Sikhs both have the smallest numbee of people in lowest two quintiles of wealth in India. And btw Jatts are known to be richer among Sikhs. So Jatt Sikhs likely even better off on average than displayed here. Only Khatris are richer and they are tint minority of Sikhs.

    5. Looks like while analyzing communities you suffer with the same problem which most pakistanis generally do including your friend @araingang.
      FYI general observation tells that at the moment Haryana scores above all in the Subcontinent including Ind/Pak. Most sportsman also come from that state.

  12. kerala is tall. i assume it has to do with egalitarianism.

    genetically there seems likely a west-east gradient. bengalis are just short. doesn’t matter what they eat

    1. Yup. But I don’t think the guy has the analytic skills to see beyond the streotypes or actively chooses not to use them. If data doesn’t fit his view, he straw mans, makes stuff up, or just ignores it. He then jumps to the same wacky thought experiments.

    2. Yeah I think these people want to believe what they want to believe. I give them data. They ignore it or don’t understand it? Not sure. They make the same wild claims no matter what. They desperately want their streotypes to be true.

      They have views and then try to retrofit data and ignore it, if that doesn’t work. They don’t use data to inform themselves.

  13. Nice interview. I was pleasantly surprised by how “normal”/relaxed ArainGang was. Someone with a different viewpoint for sure, but definitely not insufferable and someone I could have a coffee/beer with. Based on his Twitter profile, expected someone who was a hardline Pakistani nationalist. Maybe a lesson for all to be a bit more balanced/nicer on social media, like we are in real life.

    1. If you want someone fitting your description, look for canadian_786 on reddit

      Araingang tries to slyly veil his ideas and there is an element of truth to some of the things he says at times, but this other dude just outright lies and will go to any extent to defame Hinduism and India

      His hyperlinks will read totally different from the news articles themselves
      Also caught him larping as a Sikh once
      He runs his own site talking about “ancient pakistan” and islam

      Araingang probably even knows him, if I had to guess, these two provide the pakistanis on reddit a lot of the non-mainstream anti-India and anti-Hinduism fodder

  14. Here is an advice to Qureishi: next time you talk about this, you should have polygenic genetic height estimates from some GWAS so that you don’t go on and on about potential height without at least a preliminary measured genetic reference.

  15. @Warlock

    I am not sure who you are arguing with?

    Not only are you committing strawman, you keep accusing me of doing that. How? You haven’t even addressed my actual argument which is: ***People are not equal when it comes to looks, height, skincolor.***

    I gave an example of Jatts being predisposed to being tall and you latched onto that, without reading, without understanding what is being said here. I can only assume you got some serious beef with Jatts because I am not even Jatt and even I feel the revulsion you have for them here, based on your posts right now and many others before on this blog.

    The survey we both linked clearly show Punjabis being tallest state in India. So why are you arguing? Did I slag off South Indians or East Indians or Central? Show me a post where? Like why are you so defensive about it? In Urdu we have a phrase: ”dukhti ragg per haath rekha”. Maybe that’s the case here.

    Here are my assertions, which I believe to be generally true:

    1) Beauty is both objective, and then subjective. People have varied preferences, but there is enough literature on a convergence of these beauty standards. There is an objective beauty standard, much has been written about it. Usually these indicate youth and fertility and health. Symmetrical faces, clear skin, luscious hair. Scientists have tried to define it via the Golden Ratio but this seems still a work in progress.

    Objective beauty exists in the animal kingdom and as far as I know, the science is settled here. Birds like the peacock of the birds of paradise are just good examples to use here.

    2) Maximum height is inherited. You cannot just grow to 6’5 no matter how much on point your nutrition is. You are born with that maximum. And different groups have different maximums, whether thats due to several generations of their ancestors eating a bad diet, or whether their ancestors got evolved like that naturally in an isolated environment.Pygmies are not growing to 6 feet and Jatt Rappers don’t stop growing after they hit 150 cm.

    Now if you want to argue these two points specifically, be my guest. I made no other argument here, so don’t put words in my mouth or go off on weird race tangents that I never expressed.

    I feel people here slag off communists, but when it comes to looks and height, people tend to become the biggest commies here. All men are not created not equal. Not even American founding fathers thought so when they wrote that.

    1. Straw man again. I never said all groups are the same on height. But once again you make wonky exaggerated claims and backtrack. Jatts do not seem to be geneticlaly predisposed to being tall anymore more tha Keralites looking at the data. Any controlling for nutrition seem rather middling, based on data collected and maybe a couple inches at most above average if you want to make inferences based in streotypes and do weighted averages.

      Basically again you promulgate streotypes all day long and do nothing else.

      And your beautu stuff is trash once again. You present 0 data. Just random assertions based on the biases you grew up with. Then claim data will magiclaly come out your ass one day to support what you are saying.
      Jatts don’t seem to be predisposed to being particularly tall looking at that data. And if they are it seems marginally so. You brought them up with Scandanavians which is laughable, in avg height comparison. Even for their region they aren’t that tall. Wow 5’6 vs. 5’7 and Kerela is similar enough and different genetically and geographically.
      Beauty standards are highly subjective. Skin color norms, facial proportions, all of these ideals vary tremendously when you look at isolated tribes and what they historically preferred and how they generally considered outsiders ugly looking.

      Your facination with the great coming of the Beauty Science Messiah and proving your racialist suppositions correct is as much as a fairy tale as Snow White, pun intended.
      You also contest none of my points again. You contest none of the socioeconomic inferences from the data. You literally made up “predisposed” to being tall and then expressed your hope scientists would confirm your beauty standard biases. None of that is expression of anything more than wishful thinking.

      Then you made some wacko strawman about looks and height “communism”

      And my past lol? What? Yes I have called out online anti science racialists for some time. And yes they disproportionately tend to be internet Jats. I really don’t know why. I have heard the same nonsensical dribble.peddled by them and their lackeys constantly.

      Btw I say “internet jats” on purpose. Yes the community seems ethnocentric to me in general but boy does the internet bring out the wackos.

  16. I feel people here slag off communists, but when it comes to looks and height, people tend to become the biggest commies here. All men are not created not equal. Not even American founding fathers thought so when they wrote that.

    all jatt men are born with giant pink dongs. just how god made them 🙂

  17. Is it possible to keep phenotype discussions to the Open Thread?
    I’ve no idea what happened here to trigger this.

    1. I get annoyed too but can empathize to a certain extent. Folks in India have a very rosy view of the US and dont realize how alienating and Darwinian this society can be for working classes, especially immigrants. When we think Indian American, we think software engineers and managers, who are coexisting with the elite Americans and ultra intelligent Chinese immigrants in Silicon Valley and children in Ivy Leagues. But a lot of Indians here are working class folks whose children attend underfunded schools, racial/genetic identities can get internalized very early and can become the primary way of identifying oneself.

      I wonder if Muslim and Christian kids face this in working class Indian environments.

  18. Some of Araingang’s comments on the “Look West” and “Muslim first” attitude do not hold water. This is not the same as saying they do not hold valence. In fact almost all subcontinental Muslims have since time immemorial have only defined themselves in contrast to the autochthonous cultural traditions.

    Some historical facts – India’s first Muslim university was founded much before its first Hindu university. The Muslim League was formed much earlier than the Mahasabha or RSS. Long before Savarkar even penned the contours for Hindu activism, Syed Ahmed Khan was moralizing about Muslim separateness and distinctiveness. So the Muslim idea of a distinct nation was the first to be expressed coherently. The Hindu side was reacting. Its not hard to see this – the Hindu expression of political thoughts are always couched in syncretic language (secularism) while Muslim political movements are filled with binaries.

    I think this provides valence in some existential dilemmas to Pakistanis (diaspora or not). The generation of people living today are not invested with the urgency of those that voted for a separate nation (over 80% of subcontinental Muslims). Therefore they have to rationalize in this convoluted manner. Shivaji’s Hindavi Swarajya was a counter-reaction to centuries of cultural and religious imperialism that ran counter to well established to Indian syncretic urges. Hindutva has the same origins. If history is going to repeat itself, then….

    The other part of the discussion where the panel discusses whether the IVC has continuity with modern day Hinduism brings me to my favourite animal at the petting zoo. There are well established Indian writers and sociologist who have dwelt at length on various aspects starting from caste (Iravati) to cultural symbols (Mahadevan). When Vasant Shinde claims full spectrum continuity from the IVC to modern day India, he means every bit of it. I can understand Araingang’s motivations to reduce it to one Yogic posture seal, but the rest of the panel?? Sadly this part was bereft of rich content.

  19. The tallest people in the world are not Nordics than Serbs. The average heights of Serbs are – 185.6 cm (in Dinaric Alps), 183.4 (in Montenegro), 183.9 (in Herzegovina), 182 (in Serbia).

    Nordics (I1) are genetically closest to Vincan Serbs (I2) – Norway (179.7), Sweden (181.5 young 20-24 and 177.9 whole population), Dutch are also tall – 180.8.

    Dicks lengths are proportional to respective heights (on average equal to 10% of heightsThe tallest people in the world are not Nordics than Serbs. The average heights of Serbs are – 185.6 cm (in Dinaric Alps), 183.4 (in Montenegro), 183.9 (in Herzegovina), 182 (in Serbia).

    Nordics (I1) are genetically closest to Vincan Serbs (I2) – Norway (179.7), Sweden (181.5 young 20-24 and 177.9 whole population), Dutch are also tall – 180.8.

    Dicks lengths are proportional to respective heights. (on average equal to 10% of height The tallest people in the world are not Nordics than Serbs. The average heights of Serbs are – 185.6 cm (in Dinaric Alps), 183.4 (in Montenegro), 183.9 (in Herzegovina), 182 (in Serbia).

    Nordics (I1) are genetically closest to Vincan Serbs (I2) – Norway (179.7), Sweden (181.5 young 20-24 and 177.9 whole population), Dutch are also tall – 180.8.

    Dicks lengths are proportional to respective heights. (on average equal to 10% of height exepte extraordianry talented)

  20. //Syed Ahmed Khan was moralizing about Muslim separateness and distinctiveness//

    Syed Ahmed Khan only came to the ”separate conclusion” after the Hindi-Urdu controversy erupted. Same Syed Ahmad Khan before this said things like:

    “‘We (Hindus and Muslims) eat the same crop, drink water from the same rivers and breathe the same air. As a matter of fact Hindus and Muslims are the two eyes of the beautiful bride that is Hindostan. Weakness of any one of them will spoil the beauty of the bride (dulhan)”

    He appointed his close friend Raja Jaikrishan Das Bahadur, as the first Secretary of the Aligarh Scientific Society.

    However his views towards this ”unity” changed quite a bit after. One must ponder why several founders of the Pakistan movement (spiritual and actual) started off as ‘Hindu-Muslim unity” peaceniks and turned 180 degrees in their views.

    The ”existential” dilemma in Pakistan is solely about whether to be an Islamic state with more Islamic laws, or adopt a more Western Style secular democracy. There is no dilemma w.r.t some kind of pan-South Asian civilization. The links to the east were severed in 1971. The state introduced new policy of looking to the Muslim countries in the West. Two new subjects of Islamiyat and Pakistan studies were introduced. Pakistan studies pretty much eliminates any discussion of Indian history before the arrival of the British. Even the Mughals don’t get any attention. Islamiyat solidifies religious education, and early history of Islam is emphasized upto the rule of the first Four Caliphs, and this is very puritan. No flavor of ‘Indian Islam’. So why would the population look east, most really think Indians are foreigners just like UK or USA, literally and historically. Bollywood is literally the only connecting link, but even this has declined quite a lot in the last decade. Most Pakistanis grow up reading stories about Islamic figures, not past Indian figures. This is why nobody claims Ashoka’s conquests as ”our history” in Pakistan, but Ertugrul is considered ”part of our history and tradition” by much of the populace.

    1. One reason I could think of is Hindus bending over backwards to make even nobodies say ‘same-same people’ but Muslim leaders showing their true colors as soon as they become popular. You should see the welcome Bharat ratna Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan got during Indira’s time, dude could have been the president of India. Let us wait and see if this same argument (the 180 degree turn of Haleems from secularism to islamism) is used when the Muslim numbers increase in Europe.

      Syed Ahmed Khan was a communal racist whose tongue was sore from all the ass licking. Have you read about his racist views on ‘short dark.. ‘ Bengalis? Perhaps Pakistanis should ponder why none of their founding father ever ‘fought’ for freedom.

      1. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was an Anglophile who shared the British racial beliefs, thus the ‘Sir’ before his name. He was knighted for supporting the British in the 1857 rebellion. Come to think of it, most of India should have been knighted after 1857 for being loyal British subjects.

        What irked Syed Ahmed Khan was the fact that his close Hindu friends from the elite proved even better at sucking up to the Brits. They saw the change of tide and jumped ship right away.

        After blaming the 1857 rebellion on the Mooslems, the Hindu elite set out to win British favor by Anglicizing and becoming Anglophiles at an alarming rate. 3500 years of Gora rule will do that to any population. Syed Ahmed Khan was just playing the same game, he didn’t want his boyz to be left behind.

        Regardless, if you think Congress and Gandhiji were ”fighting” for India’s freedom, then a big LOL. Fighting how? By getting arrested? At least I have respect for Bose who actually took up arms, even though he picked the worst side to fight for. Muslim League on the other had already had decided they rather have their own state and they played their cards perfectly.

        1. He was so irked that he became racist too.

          “After blaming the 1857 rebellion on the Mooslems”
          This is such BS. What can I say? Tatya tope, Mangal Pandey, Lakshmi Bai… if you had said ‘someone/some-people’ believe this then I would have let it slide but this BS is disproven by the fact that the rebel 1857 army was majority Thakur-Baman from Bengal-Bihar.

          Yeah LoL! now go laugh at Mandela and Luther King too. Congress ran civil disobedience and quit India campaign, did a grass roots organisation and capacity building, did satyagrahas in Champaran, Dharasana, Dandi, Barodi, Kheda… but LoL LoL LoL everything is LoL! Land reforms are LoL! continuity-preparation is LoL! only thing not LoL is megalomania of Jinnah and cluelessness/coups after Liaqat.

          Other than Bose there were Azad, Bhagat Singh, Alluri Sitaram, Khudiram, Chittaranjan, Ashfaqulla, Jatin …. Where are musclemaan pak-nationalist revolutionaries?

          1. //This is such BS. What can I say? Tatya tope, Mangal Pandey, Lakshmi Bai//

            Did you not understand what I said? The army maybe Brahmin-Thakur majority but the emperor they were fighting for was Mooslem (so much for your anti Muslim rhethoric). The British blamed the Muhammadans, and the Hindu elite took advantage of that, started with trying to split the lingua franca along religious lines. For them, they were just replacing one master with another. Anyone saying India was ”one country” should just read in detail about how the British took control of India, culminating in 1857 where majority of Indian rulers were fine with British rule. I mean the goras could conquer us, but how dare those men from UP/Bihar conquer us.. classic India backstab.

            //Yeah LoL! now go laugh at Mandela and Luther King too. Congress ran civil disobedience and quit India campaign, did a grass roots organisation and capacity building//

            Reading Azad’s book ”India Wins Freedom”, it is quite clear that the Congress was a toothless organization. Guy was trying to make best out of worst situation during the war but he was always opposed by stupid Gandhiji who going mental with Ahimsa, and influencing all other Congress leaders, except Nehru. It were the Americans who were forcing teh British hand on Indian independence, otherwise Congress and Gandhiji would have settled for another few decades of useless hunger strikes.

        2. Yes Gandhi was unfortunately way too caught up in Ahimsa stuff. Granted he got popular same way MLK did which was appearing as a peaceful alternative to more violent ones like Bose.

          His idea in general was using fact thay Indians had population majority over British by a long shot was that if Indians refused to cooperate and united only in that, the British couldn’t keep running things and didn’t have the man power alone to stop them.

          There was no strong united war like movement. India may have been broken up into more tiny pieces without Gandhi. Do I wish we had had an Ataturk, aka some sort of modernizing truly secular nationalist (minus Armenian genocide very close parallel like Bengal was for example in both magnitude and style), sure I wish. But we unfortunately didn’t. There is a reason Gandhi is even seen in a neutral to positive light in modern day Pak. He was weird as hell. But his quit India style wasn’t entirely illogical. It also bought India peaceful image soft power for awhile. But then we had continued idiot idealists like Nehru take over and do stuff like blindly trust China…

          Btw, even Malcolm X saw Gandhi movement working due to critical mass and proportions. He felt black numbers were too small in America. But his violence made MLK more popular ajd MLK’s gandhi inspired style got more of the White majority on the black side. Yes there was pain and problems. But it is conceivable this peaceful lays the foundation for more long term harmony.

          Secular revolutions like China’s and the USSR’s also killed legit millions. Hard to say for sure how it would have gone for indian subcontinent.

          1. Calling congress a toothless organization is disingenuous. In retrospect Only India of the countries getting independent has avoided dictatorship and military rule and has to certain extent working institutions. Without the Congress organization and freedom struggle its not imaginable how India could have got that.
            You cant find any examples of working democracies anywhere else. Especially on this scale.
            Arguably Pak/ Bdesh / SL are perfect countries on european nation state models – Democratically they have been far less successful than India.
            Hindus like to give the credit for the Indian experiment to Hinduism – i am skeptical of it and would give more credit to Indian freedom struggle – WHICH was more of a national consciousness builder than mere fighting of the British.

            There is an essay by Gandhi called the Anatomy of a Bomb – about Bhagat singh and revolutionaries.

            While to cursory view his Ahimsa might appear childish and too idealistic – i argue its pragmatic.
            Dont wanna go all pedantic – but once weapons are used on the Other it doesnt take much to turn them and find new others to fire them on.
            And all revolutions are historic examples of that. Even the Bangladesh struggle didn’t immediately result in Democracy nor did Tamil.

            Its fascinating to note that Hindutva leaning folks and by experience – Pakistani (nationalist or otherwise) tend to agree on this view of Gandhian Congress struggle. Maybe its a certain worldview in principle that leads to these ideologies which appear antagonistic

    2. All this is fine, but can you explain why 18 year old Pakistani boys end up shooting hundreds of innocent civilians in Mumbai ?

      We dont really care who Pakistani’s think their heroes are etc, the question is where does this impulse for extreme violence against India come from ?

      1. \where does this impulse for extreme violence against India come from \
        Other countries also. Britain had suicide bombings of it’s train by Pakistani Muslims. Many more violent acts by Pakistani muslims have been averted through constant vigilance of spies.
        Few months back, a 18 year old Pakistani refugee in Paris went on killing spree.
        The Japanese translator of Salma Rushdie was killed by a pakistani.
        Many pakistanis believe they are shock troops for Mohammed with a license to kill. This is not new. This has started from the days of ‘Rangila Rasul’ murder which was defended by Jinnah and iqbal

        1. Yup, their textbooks preach hatred and supremacism, and we have some diaspora individuals here trying to tell us Pakistanis ‘dont care about India’ etc.

          Pakistan simply isnt a nation in any conventional sense of the word. It is more of a base or a staging area, for a disgruntled former elite to try and take back what they are told should be theirs. And this elite will use any means to do so, including making cold-blooded killers out of children.

          Four defeats chastened even the Arabs vis-a-vis Israel, this is because they have some sense of fellow feeling for their masses at a cultural and racial level. The same number of defeats and dismemberment hasnt prompted any soul searching amongst the Pakistani elite.

    3. @ S Qureishi

      The ”existential” dilemma in Pakistan is solely about whether to be an Islamic state with more Islamic laws, or adopt a more Western Style secular democracy. There is no dilemma w.r.t some kind of pan-South Asian civilization

      This statement is delusional – its almost what Araingang said.

      Everything that the Pakistan Establishment has been doing in the last 70 years has been to resurrect a pan-South Asian Islamicate civilization to attain legitimacy. While India has been reviving its civilisational ties with the Arabs. Pakistan, despite its pretensions to being part of some Look-West pan-Islamicate club – is not a member or even a observer at the Arab League. Allow me to gloat and rub some salt – India is a observer state in the Arab League. This is what civilizational asabiya looks like.

      Your existential dilemma is something else – much more primeval. The Arabs know what you are, in a limbic sense. We Indians know what you are. Only Pakistanis lack this self-realization – and they have been very consciously preventing a acculturation to the Indic core. History has been very cruel to posers – like the farce where Illyrians kept calling themselves Romans. And Romans used to call them Barbarians.

      1. //This statement is delusional – its almost what Araingang said.//

        Perhaps he knows more about Pakistani society than you, him being a Pakistani and all, right?
        He is absolutely on the mark here.

        //Pakistan, despite its pretensions to being part of some Look-West pan-Islamicate club – is not a member or even a observer at the Arab League//

        I think this is the type of useless information someone would throw to try to make a point, without actually understanding how useless it is. India is a observer of the Arab league, so what? So is Eritrea and Venezuela. I don’t think they are proclaiming how far reaching Venezuelan civilization is.
        Indians have a habit of reading too much into trivial things.

        To the GCC countries, India is nothing but another avenue for trade, a market of a billion people they can sell oil. Indians (yes people who are not Modi ji) are way down the totem pole in GCC countries, way below Pakistanis or Bangladeshis even.

        // Only Pakistanis lack this self-realization – and they have been very consciously preventing a acculturation to the Indic core. History has been very cruel to posers – like the farce where Illyrians kept calling themselves Romans. And Romans used to call them Barbarians.//

        What is this ”indian core”? I would argue there is no such thing as an ”Indian core”.
        And it’s only a Hindutva trope that Pakistanis yearn to unite with ”the Indian core” and the elites are preventing that. Sorry, have you ever talked to the commoners? They don’t care or know about India, much less than the middle or elite classes. Go watch any Pakistani News Channel, there is literally no debate about ”whether Pakistan is part of the Indian core” or any discussion about Indian culture of civilization. We don’t consider ourselves part of it. Our history might be linked, but most people don’t care because they are not taught that for good or for worse.

        I don’t think even Indians believe in any ”Indian core” or civilization. Indians have adopted a Western form of government, Western style constitution, try to speak a Western language, try to dress like Westerners and yet talk about ‘Indian civilization’. Just look at your example, you choose a Western example about ”Illyrians/Romans” rather than an Indian one. What do we make of that?

        1. You make some decent points here. Pakistanis really view themselves as Islamic first, even in diaspora. Religion is a very big wedge for sure. Indian Muslims will view themselves more and more as such if BJP plays a bit too aggressively. They have assimilate them into civilizational identity fold yet also not play appeasement like congress. One cannot ignore 14% of people. It’s a tough game to play.

          1. I am probably the only one who learned Devanagari script (because I was reading about Urdu/Hindi split) in my entire generation, including friends, cousins, far off relatives. Nobody knows it or cares about it. Even telling anyone that I learnt Devanagari invited wry smiles and smirky comments like: ”Ha, why would you want to learn that” or ”lol whats the use of that, learn Arabic, Farsi or French”..

            But then reading Indian comments, Indians think that Pakistanis want to rejoin some notion of this ”Indic” core. It’s all so detached from reality.

          1. I have no idea, but what I can say in my experience is that Indian Muslims see themselves as quite Indian, but usually never want to be labelled as Hindu or get assimilated in some secular syncretic culture. Not to say that some kind of syncretic culture wont or hasnt evolved over time between Hindus/Muslims, but any top down efforts are going to be met with heavy resistance because its looked at suspiciously.

            Anecdotal story: my friend’s brother in law who is also one of my friends, from a Hyderabadi Muslim family.. they were always proud to be Indian.. He would regularly post patriotic messages on social media.. For example after Pulwama blast, he posted a patriotic poster on social media about “Hindustan” etc etc.. Seems like he has gone really quite after the Delhi riots and CAA. Does not talk about India anymore.

          2. Seems like he has gone really quite after the Delhi riots and CAA. Does not talk about India anymore.
            Sadly that also seems to be true. Personally i dont hold Syncretism that highly. Like combining of two delusions.

            Just a rollback from Deobandi influence and the late 20th century Wahabi influence would work wonders. Indian muslims should modernize which they seem to have resisted more than other groups in india. Coz new india is as you rightly said Western like and modern looking with holding on to Hinduism.

            Omar also alluded to the potential switch in Indian Muslims wrt CAA and NRC. especially the way it went about. That’s been my fear especially since the heightened polarization campaign of 2019 LS. Personally i had felt 2017 UP was the rubicon wrt BJP for me but 2019 LS definitely is more so.
            Its tragic from Indian POV and harmony point of view – especially when it appears to be just virtue signaling. But i expect to get fair pushback on this blog itself for these views.

          3. Deobandism and Salafism are modernizing Islamic movements.. As Muslims get educated, they also leave behind traditional modes of Islam for more fundamental and forms like Deobandism and Salafism. Adopting a Western secular mold is also an option for the educated class but this experiment has failed across multiple countries who tried to Westernize but eventually fell back to the Islamic mold. Iran as a example in the past, Turkey as an example currently. Whole host of reasons why this happens but there is a sense of a clash of Western values with Islamic ones on a civilization-al scale which is why Islamic societies are resistant to Westernization.

        2. Honestly, people need to accept that Akhand Bharat is foolish. If people view themselves as a separate nation state, that’s what they are now after establishment of 70+ years. Pakistanis destest the idea of unifying with India. It would be contrary to their islamic identity and movement towards the ummah. Indians have to accept that idealogy is too strong of a difference.

          But they should also not alienate their own Muslims so much that they think this way. Again though, fairness is key. Over appeasement is bad and just marginalizes others then.

          1. “Honestly, people need to accept that Akhand Bharat is foolish. If people view themselves as a separate nation state, that’s what they are now after establishment of 70+ years.”

            Not with that attitude 😛

            In any case, a union with India doesn’t mean Pakistan will be subsumed. Rather we could have a Europe like set-up with free movement and trade and more space for regional cultures to express themselves.

            Islam will need to be de-fanged before that can happen. I don’t see it in the next hundred years but then stranger things have happened.

          2. @Prats

            Yeah but they defanging of radical islamist separatism is at least three generations away. Maybe after that there can be some convo w/ a stronger EU type arrangement as a starting point

          3. @prats
            EU like free movement cannot happen in next 50-100 years.. India is too big and there are too many people who believe in Akhand Bharat. Besides Kashmir is still unresolved and any resolution seems far fetched right now. Climate change only makes water and consequently Kashmir even more valuable.

        3. @S Qureishi

          I am not claiming that Araingang’s or the general Pakistani view has no valence or a negative valence.

          Its only the pretence of “not caring” for what lies to the East of Pakistan. The “Indianisation” of Pakistanis has been going on for quite some time and also very successfully.

          1. @Ugra

            If you actually believe Pakistan is becoming more ”Indianized”, then I think you can believe anything because its completely detached from reality. Its not pretense, the militestablishment looks East for defense but nobody else cares about it unless it’s Kashmir (which is not East either)

  21. Araingang wants to attribute all that is good in S Asian hx to indus valley and all that is bad to gangetic plain and claim the former as some separate ancient Pak civilization (even though in literally includes all of haryana, gujarat, western UP, and good part of rajasthan and Patels and Reddys are closer to IVC genetics than Pakistanis, since they have too much steppe) and the latter as the “real evil” Brahmanical Hindu civilization

    1. @thewarlock

      If IVC did have caste system, how do we know Patels and Reddys were not at the bottom of this system? There are IVC periphery samples with extremely low AASI, so maybe the IVC highest caste were Brahui (minus Steppe) like? In that case, these Indian groups represent genetic continuity with lowest caste IVC. I wouldn’t be too proud of that.

      1. “I wouldn’t be too proud of that.”
        What is there to feel ashamed (not proud) about descending from ‘low’ castes?
        Is your pride effected by not being Nordic?

      2. We only know they are the closest. We don’t know anything about how racialized the caste system wa. Hell there was fair bit of mixing in our modern one until about 2000 yeard ago, when it stabalized. We can guess the more iranic ones were low caste too. We can say caste was independent of profession. We can say plenty of crap. The only reality is that they are the racially closest. Also in IPE, there was a 40% aasi individual,1/3 actually in Narsimhan samples in NW periphery of IVC. We don’t have enough skeletons to even fully know demographic ranges of diff proportions, much less proportional ancestries in each caste. But we do know is lack of steppe in all samples and that’s pretty convincing.

        Of course, you want to imply supposition of higher aasi as lowest status as usual. Typical racialist behavior of.

        Let me even contest the best version of your completely unverified claim: Regardless, even if they were the lowest caste, so what? They represent the best continuity. They are doing well relative to other S Asian groups today. Why does it even matter? If anything, it shows their resilience in your weird scenario. They started from the Indus, resisted getting supplanted by outside males, unlike their Pak and even Indian upper caste bretheren, and doing well.

        Anyway, basking in getting cucked more w/ more recent outside S Asia ancestry on average (indo aryans), more R1a (shows how your male majority IVC and aasi ancestors were replaced), and fake MENA larping (only stopped now and replaced with nonsense Indus exclusivity trains when genetics don’t bear out) is pretty darn hilarious,if you really want to play genetic dick measuring.

        Pakistan rejects its Indus roots more with its religion. Hinduism at least has elements of IVC tradition. Hell even araingang made completely unverfied claim he thinks Jainism and Buddhism are pre-IVC like and “snuck” into Hinduism, but his ultra biased Pak nationalist self recognizes it is there. And indian groups like Patels and Reddys and Kammas have the most racial continuity.

        Now all of this is truly meaningless. Except for shutting down your Larp on two levels, especially the racialist context you presented it in

        1. It is dumb to begin with in and of itself
        2. Even if you do it in your nutty racialist and/or claims of cultural supremaxist narrative stemming from the earliest antiquity, it still also doesn’t make sense

        1. @thewarlock
          >”We only know they are the closest.”

          Shouldn’t Balochis be the closest because they have the highest IHG? As I am a newbie, I can be wrong.
          What is the source of ALL the genetic stuffs people say in BP? This website: https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/datasets ? Please mention other sites if any.
          What other sites do I need to follow to know all about population genetics?

          >”They are doing well relative to other S Asian groups today.”

          What are all the evidences of modern AASI-shifted people doing better?
          My main problem about AASI is that AASI has negroid-looks that often give me inferiority complex for having many AASI & my confidence decreases.

          1. There was a cline.

            https://www.brownpundits.com/2019/09/04/south-asian-genetics-open-thread/

            Read this. 2-50% aasi. There is no evidence aasi heavy people are doing better overall but Gujarat Patels and mid caste S Indians like Reddys are doing well today relative to most other subcontinental groups. It is an “even if argument.” Even if you want to argue they are low casye in even IVC, a bold assumption without data or good structures beyond IVC lacking steppe and having a cline of aasi and Iranic Mesolithic HG related DNA, even if, it still shouldn’t matted.

            Negroid looks? What are.you going on about? Some pseudoscience of Coon. Are you confused bro. Learn to be proud of your own looks.that js the first step.

          2. Look at me. I am brown. I have clear aasi in my look. And I like myself. Learn to like yourself. You are a loser about your looks only if you want to be and get caught up into the nonsensical largely artifical S Asian norms. And honestly why are you insecure? Are you having problems with bullies? Women don’t like you? AASI looks isn’t the main cause of that stuff. It is low self esteem man. First learn to be happy and proud of who you are and what you look like.

            https://imgur.com/a/yGCg1E5

          3. Haha. No. I look neither negroid nor particularly AASI-shifted…may be I look mostly Caucasoid: I look like slightly a more Indic-version of you(i have a pan-South Asian look;neither Northern nor Southern). i am not Dravidian/South Indian either but I have many AASI(just like an average South Asian)

            Here is the problem:100% AASI contains negroid features and many Paniyas(if not most) have negroid-looks which according to many is “monkey-look” and SA on average has too much AASI ancestry. Also, modern Aboriginals(e.g. Andamanese) still have a primitive lifestyle.

            You look Pakistani-shifted compared to average South Asians and you look good.

          4. That is not true bro. I look pan S Asian. I pass well in Hyderbad. My maternal side lives there for 50 years. I am darkest in my extended family and people say I look S Indian. I also pass fine in Delhi. I look mostly Gujarati. Hardik Pandya is a good comparison point. I fit better among Gujarati Patels than I do among any sort Northern group like Birdari Punjabi. Of course, I fit best among Guju vanias. I cluster with s indian Brahmins but they look diff compared to me overall, in terms of ideal fit.

            I am not sure what “negroid” features are. What is wrong with panniyas? They just look poor and tribal. But they don’t look bad at all. Many have symmetrical faces and nice shine to their chocolate complexion. They have majestic look to me.

          5. “100% AASI contains negroid features and many Paniyas(if not most) have negroid-looks which according to many is “monkey-look” and SA on average has too much AASI ancestry. Also, modern Aboriginals(e.g. Andamanese) still have a primitive lifestyle.”

            ‘monkey-look’ ? ‘negroid’ ? wtf?

          6. Some bigoted dude on quora doesn’t mean much. Panniyas neither look nor are genetically closer to monkeys. The assertion they are is racist, plain and simple.

          7. That’s not my opinion! And I am against such statements. I was referring to many who often use these statements which have been historically widely used in a serious manner.
            https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/letters/2012/apes.htm

            Ironically, despite having AASI(Andamanese-looking) ancestry many South Asians look down upon Blacks. Yes, I know that despite SOME facial similarity, AASI is not related to Blacks/Africans

          8. Bro those are disturbing fringe opinions. People have them, but they are rare and almost universally condemned. Best not to even link them and give attention to just nonsense.

      3. \these Indian groups represent genetic continuity with lowest caste IVC. I wouldn’t be too proud of that.\
        This is caste/race snobbery of the highest – or lowest- order. In history, topdogs become bottom dogs and vice versa, even over 1 or 2 generations . The genetic continuity , if true, itself is a historical curiosity. It is possible Indian dalits of today can be ruling elite in a few gens .

        1. The universal disparagement of Paniyas and any AASI shifted groups or individuals in South Asia as “Negroid” looking is akin to how the Afromestizo Dominicans despise their neighbors, the Haitians for being Negroid looking and pride themselves on being Spanish. The best way to insult any Dominican irrespective of complexion is to call them black. I read of how many Dominicans referred to a particular news channel as “the channel of uglies” because all the presenters and interviewees looked “Negroid” rather than Spanish. This anti black bias in Dominican Republic became institutionalised as the Palsley Massacre under Trujillo’s dictatorship. Even today many Dominican citizens of Haitian origin experience discrimination in the Dominican Republic.

          1. And the Puerto Ricans look down on the Dominicans. because

            a) On average Puerto Ricans are far more light skinned than Dominicans

            b) Puerto Ricans are part of the US. (i.e. travel back and forth legally).

          2. \ universal disparagement of Paniyas and any AASI shifted groups or individuals in South Asia\

            Universal??? Disparagement ?? this is a clasic case of ‘projection’ i.e. ascribing one’s own usually bad feelings to others. Speak for yourself

            Paniyas forever.

        2. But unlike Afromestizos, all South Asians(except rare tribes e.g. Paniya) have more than 50% West Eurasian(mostly Indus) ancestry.

          1. Hey Dip

            all South Asians(except rare tribes e.g. Paniya) have more than 50% West Eurasian(mostly Indus) ancestry

            Dont put us Sri Lankans (including me) in the Predominantly West Asian, South Asian category.

            We are black jungle monkeys/bunnies (as my SO calls me) and proud of it.

          2. If most South Asians have more than 50 percent West Eurasian ancestry (mostly Indus), then how come most South Asians are brown to black skinned rather than light skinned? I am aware of the fact that skin colour is determined by a handful of genes but from your assertion, one would expect most South Asians including ones from India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to be light skinned like Puerto Ricans. But from my observation, the inhabitants of most South Asian countries are medium brown to dark skinned with a handful of light skinned people. But it it is opposite for Pakistan and some of the Indian states bordering it (Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab). The only exceptions to this rule are Bhutan, Sikkim and a major portion of North East India who are racially and ethnically distinct from the rest of South Asia.

          3. We know from DNA tests.
            Many info on genetics here:
            https://www.brownpundits.com/category/genetics/
            Even South Indian Tamils who are the least West Eurasian-shifted ethnicity have more than 50% West Eurasian ancestry. And this is a reason why many South Asians are hairy and why SAs look predominantly Caucasoid.

            @sbarrkum Is your SO racist and say this in a derogatory matter?

      4. There was a cline, but we don’t know it social correspondence. Some here have speculated that while Varna might be Indo-European in origin, jati/caste is south Asian.

        https://imgur.com/a/lo2HEsj

        If you want to know which modern castes/groups are closest to shahr ba2, gonur2_ba and shahr ba3 respectively then you can do so on vahaduo. Though the shahr ba2 of today is basically merged shahr ba2+ba3. So you’ll need to snoop around in order to find the old ba2 and ba3 coordinates since they aren’t separate on global25 sheets.

        1. DT, you are an expert for ancient phenotypes (so as APthk [where is he?] in modern). Few months ago, we had a topic regarding ‘steppe’ phenotypes. Can you describe R1b Yamnaya people who went to Europe and specifically tell us (in Open Thread) if they were white. Txs

    2. Hey thewarlock/Redemption, I’m sorry you always have to these dehumanizing conversations with people that aren’t that different than you. I have read your comments with great interest (even though I’m not very conservative) on Anthroscape while lurking and on this site after recognising your writing style. You’re a good guy and I wish you the best in life and with your future career as a Doctor.

  22. I have been reading the Greater Magadha book by Johaness B;
    ArainGang has pulled of a lot of his takes on India – Hinduism v Buddhism & so called Indus people from that scholarly work.

    I sense a deep one way bias in the book – needs to be read in totality – yet seems to be nitpicky at the moment.

  23. “Rather we could have a Europe like set-up with free movement and trade and more space for regional cultures to express themselves.”

    The right analogy here is more EU and Turkey than two EU countries.

  24. On Greater Magadha:

    Bronkhorst I think understates the impact of Vedic religion on Buddhism and Jainism development. Early descriptions of the region as Asura indicates an Aryan population that broke from Vedic orthodoxy, rather than a Dasa-Mleccha population formulating an independent ideology. As Razib likes to say though, low confidence on which is more true.

    On Indus Valley:

    Less about good guys and bad guys, and more about calling time on the Hindutva narrative of “1000 years of slavery”. If we are going to be so myopic, the real crime in India’s history is not the 1000 years of Muslim exploitation, its the 3500 years of upper-caste Hindu exploitation. These narratives aren’t good for thoughtful convos, but do well in building national consciousness. India has too much of it right now, Pakistan not enough.

    On Hindutva vs Pak Nationalism:

    Hindu/Muslim distinctive identity talk predates the British era, and even in the early colonial era was not antagonistic with each other. This changes after Muslims start securing various rights under the British to address their economic and political backwardness. This is disliked by many Hindu leaders (seeing as favoring Muslims), and early Hindtuva stuff starts to surface. Pak Nationalism is a response to this, believing that Hindus are determined to keep Muslims under their boot, and that autonomy (later independence) is the only way Muslims can live with dignity in South Asia.

    1. Quote /the real crime in India’s history is not the 1000 years of Muslim exploitation, its the 3500 years of upper-caste Hindu exploitation/

      As always this is the gist of your comments anywhere. The buddhism vs hinduism schism cannot be compared to muslim vs hindu. You yourself say how buddhism /jainism got influenced by hinduism. Also your claims of equivalence in physical destruction and violence are not substantiated. What makes you say x years of muslim exploitation is not real crime? Does earlier crimes absolve later crimes?

      There have been crimes within Indian caste system which people including hindutva is well aware of. They are in some ways most radical about it. So No, caste oppression is not being turned blind eye on. On other hand people reveling in Muslim rule as epitome of just period where no wrong was done are clearly motivated. They need to be called out as any colonialism and will be. There is difference british rule and muslim one which is obivious since they are separated by centuries.

      On Hindutva vs Pak Nationalism:

      Again this is revisionism. Muslims think they bore the brunt of 1857 uprising and hindus got away. The rough idea in the muslim elites was somehow get the english out and we can be back in power like good old times. That clearly wasnt happening since one person one vote came into existence. The clamour for supporting khilafat movement, malabar rebellion are the events which produced hindu nationionalism as answer and not other way around.

      In short the idea that in absence of british somehow muslim rule in India is natural was broken and they led to idea of pak. Till they were in power they were good hindustanis who could accommodate the hindus. Once that road got blocked, we did rather have our own smaller country than share power with them

      1. I also am not sure where this whole “Muslims think they bore the brunt of 1857 uprising and hindus got away.” thing started. In India too in liberal circles, this is talked about. As many Hindu leaders stayed away from 1857 as Muslim leaders did. Most famously the Nizam. The only Muslim leader who sort of lost anything was Bahadur Shah, and even there he sort of just traded one pension home for another. Its not as if he was ‘ruling’ anything. In UP both Muslim and Hindu Zamindars fought and lost.

        In all regions of India either there was aloofness to 1857 (South, East India) or collaboration (Pakistani areas) or same degree of aloofness, collaboration and fight, which included both Hindus and Muslims.

        1. 1857 was a solely a Hindustani rebellion, and was not divided along communal lines. Hindus and Muslims were on both sides fighting together and against each other. The communal divisions really started to flare up after 1857. India before 1857 was very divided.

          However in the aftermath, the British held the Muslims elites of UP, Bihar, Oudh and Delhi more responsible than the Hindus. Syed Ahmed Khan even wrote a pamphlet The Causes of Indian revolt to dispell these notions that the Muslims were responsible, to no avail.

          1. Well sure Syed Ahmed Khan felt so, dont make him accurate. Almost all elites in which ever regions supported 1857 felt the wrath of Brits. In Maratha-land for example the principalities who supported Brits were rewarded. And almost all Muslim principalities did, would that mean Brits supported Muslims in those areas, at expense of Hindus ?

            Most of this is revisionism. Most is to deflect blame of partition where Muslims are accused of never having fought for India. So Muslim intellectuals hark part to past where they did fight and exaggerate their role. If you ask someone on the Hindu side, they would scoff at Muslims having a greater role or suffering disproportionately , when they have the same tales.

          2. In 1857, nation states weren’t exactly that popular when you compare it to the early 20th century when modern nation states were all the rage. If you look at the conflict through the modern lens that there was an ‘Indian’ nation, then your analysis will fail.. 1857 was by and large a revolt in the Hindi belt by Hindustani soliders and Hindustani elites (not even Bengalis were that keen on it). The Hindustanis (Hindu and Muslim alike) hated the Marathas and that feeling was mutual, Maratha strongholds would never fight to restore the Mughal emperor. The Purbiya soldiers also had recently conquered Punjab 10 years ago, and the Punjabis (sikhs primarily but also muslim, hindu) were not happy with that defeat and found a way to get back at them during 1857 by supporting the British)

            The Hindustani sepoys of the Bengal regiment were majority Brahmin and Rajput, but a significant majority of Hindustani elites backing the rebellion were Muslims. The Muslim ulema in these regions had already raised a ”religious slogan” of Jihad against the British.

            The aftermath of 1857 proves that the British held Muslims directly responsible for the revolt, Delhi was pretty much ransacked and destroyed, 80% of the buildings raised down or defaced. The city was Muslim majority before 1857, but Muslims were banned from returning for almost a decade after. The British murdered Muslim Ulema wholesale, often by artillery fire, and many Muslim men who had any relations with the rebel were shot, beheaded or hanged.

            I mentioned Syed Ahmed Khan here because he was a loyalist during 1857 and a huge anglophile. He was already declared a ‘murtad’ for his stance in 1857, and if it wasn’t for him later establishing Aligarh, he would not be remembered kindly by Muslims. Even Sir Syed was forced to write these pamphlets under the threat of being charged as seditious by the British, to explain to the British why they should have such a malicious view towards the Muslims post 1857.

          3. @Qureshi
            Kuresi (UP pronunciation), you make things up and ignore facts.

            When you already know people will contest your stance why don’t you provide sources? And this is not a charged issue either, I am fine with Muslims being Indian nationalists. You know overwhelmingly Hindu Army and a very large number of Hindu princelings rebelled but even then you are predictably appropriating the whole thing.

            Also, some of your assertions are mutually contradictory.

            Pick one:
            “loyalist during 1857 and a huge anglophile” vs “under the threat of being charged as seditious ”

            Rambling:
            “Resolved that this meeting, composed of Musalmans from all parts of India, assembled at Dacca, decide that a Political Association be formed, styled All-India Muslim League, for the furtherance of the following objects:
            (a) To promote, among the Musalmans of India, feelings of LOYALTY TO THE BRITISH Government, and to remove any misconception that may arise as to the intention of Government with regard to any of its measures.”

            In Sunny Deol voice, “Ghaddar!!!”
            Now write some more BS about tactic, master-stroke, live-with-it,….

            Anyways, people who funded Pakistan movement (Mahmoodabad, Nizam, so many other landlords…) and those who live (Punjabis, Sindhis, Pathans, Balochs, Aligarh-esque Mojahirs and previously Bengalis) did not fight in 1857! or were actually collaborators! the ullema, for whom you shed crocodile tears for, was pro-India in 1947. Syed Ahmed Khan, Iqbal, Jinnah, the ML were all boot-lickers and communal bigots.

          4. @Bhimrao

            Seems like you guys are taught a Hinduized version of history just like Pakistanis are taught a Islamicized one.

            I already posted a link about the sack of Delhi,

            I mentioned Syed Ahmed’s pamphlet. If you don’t believe me, his Wikipedia entry is a good start

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Ahmad_Khan#Causes_of_the_Indian_Revolt

            Not that I have anywhere denied that the majority of the sepoy army was Hindi. It was about 70-80% Hindu. My claim is simply that the British did not care about the religious makeup of this army. They presumed that this was the work of the Muslim elite that dominated the Hindi belt, and the fact that the rebellion had an aim to restore the Mughal Emperor was the proof that they needed. The British considered it a Muhammadan conspiracy because they were aware that they were replacing Muslim rule in India with their own.

            There is much written about the aftermath of the revolt of 1857. The book ‘The Aftermath of Revolt. India, 1857–1870’ by Dr. Thomas Metcalf is one of them, disclaimer: I have not read this book, but read an essay citing paragraphs from this book some time back.\

            You can draw your conclusion, but nowhere am I appropriating 1857 for the Muslims. I am simply claiming that the British presumed and blamed the Muslims, and punished them heavily for it in the aftermath. The Hindus simply moved right on. Infact the entire Hindi-Urdu controversy arose because of these two outcomes, the British fanned this division and rest is history.

            Lastly, another assertion here is that 1857 was a regional revolt. The Hindu dominated Bombay and Madras regiments stayed loyal to the British because the Hindustanis were foreign to them just as the British were. Similarly, the Punjab regiment supported the British because they hated the Hindustani sepoys who just 10 years earlier had conquered their country and hurt their ‘martial’ pride.

            Here is another link from Major Amin (whose journals are regularly posted here) that provides these details of different divsions

            http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/august/sepoy.htm

          5. @bhimrao
            You just jumped from 1857 to 1906, about 50 years without any problem. This is like Jumping from minute 5 of a movie to minut 95 and making up conclusions. lol

            Also, I posted another post with the links you wanted, but it seems to have been swallowed.

            For people who claim India was one nation:

            http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/august/sepoy.htm

            Also, original UP letter had Q, not K.

          6. Kuresi, I appreciate you putting in the work to reply. But this is clearly not good evidence and you are being unreasonable. Sir Syed could have believed in whatever (convenient/self-serving idea) he wanted but that doesn’t make it the truth.

            “Lord Canning, the governor-general, and Sir Bartle Frere accepted it as a sincere and friendly report. The foreign secretary Cecil Beadon, however, severely attacked it, calling it ‘an extremely seditious pamphlet’. He wanted a proper inquiry into the matter and said that the author, unless he could give a satisfactory explanation, should be harshly dealt with. Since no other member of the Council agreed with his opinion, his attack did no harm.”

            So much coercion! Sir Syed was an idiot (see link below), racist, communal collaborator,…. He is no hero, not even one of those grey ones, and because of his bias and history he is not (for our current discussion) a reliable primary source.

            https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/f75j9i/til_one_of_the_first_paper_wrote_by_sir_syed/

          7. @Bhimrao

            I mentioned Syed Ahmed Khan precisely because of the fact that he was a British loyalist, however the British heavy handedness towards Muslims in his region made him uneasy. He played an important role in trying to convince the British go more easy on the Muslims, and tried to act as a bridge. However he is not the focal point of the argument and neither do I consider him some kind of Muslim hero.

            The facts are that the British fired primarily all the Muslim civil servants, put a ban on Muslim inhabitants of Delhi from returning and generally trying to suppress the Muslim elite by confiscating their properties and executing their heirs, is really quite accepted. Hindus by and large were spared in the period 1858-1871. [By Hindus and Muslims here, I am only restricting the scope of this to Hindus and Muslims of UP/Bihar/Oudh/Delhi]. This Muslim elite actually got divided from 1857 onwards, one strain went onto form the Dar Ul Uloom at Deoband, which was an very anti-British movement, its other aim was to modernize Islam. The other modernizing movement was the Aligarh movement, founder was Syed Ahmed Khan who embraced Western education and form of government. The members produced by the Aligarh movement were always British loyalists (so was the Muslim League). But the Muslim League was not popular among the Muslims until the 1940s.

        2. Well I am not sure whether or not that is true. Just that enough people believed it. Maybe more then than now. Syed Ahmed khan was one of the people who wanted to refute this as pointed out. He also wanted the muslims of India to get with the times and accept the new reality along with science and modernity.

          However what he still couldnt accept was hindus and muslims (the elites especially) being on same level plane. His assertion “Urdu was the language of gentry and Hindi that of the vulgar” and displeasure at ‘losing’ of the centuries-old Muslim cultural domination of India is quite clear in his thoughts. That resulted in first urdu as marker for indian muslims and eventually the idea that if we cant dominate it, we will rather separate. So much for ganga jamna tehzib. Hindu nationalism comes much later in response

          Quote from Mr. Syed “At this time our nation is in a bad state in regards education and wealth, but God has given us the light of religion and the Quran is present for our guidance, which has ordained them and us to be friends. Now God has made them rulers over us. Therefore we should cultivate friendship with them, and should adopt that method by which their rule may remain permanent and firm in India, and may not pass into the hands of the Bengalis… If we join the political movement of the Bengalis our nation will reap a loss, for we do not want to become subjects of the Hindus instead of the subjects of the “people of the Book…”
          And the students of AMU which he founded have audacity to call Savarkar stooge of british.

          1. Nope, you are going off tangent about Syed Ahmed Khan, it’s besides the point.

            It’s widely accepted that the British held ”Muhammadans” more responsible than the Hindus for 1857. Just read about the aftermath of 1857, Muslims were executed, tortured and their properties confiscated, ban on them reentering Delhi.. many were fired from civil service.

            The British considered Muslims as their arch enemies in 1857 because they were replacing the Muslim rule in India. To them, the fact that the 1857 revolt aimed to restore the Mughal empire, meant that they blamed the Muslim elite in conspiring. This is not a controversial view that was ever contested.

          2. @S Qureishi

            It is not me who is going on tangent but me trying to bring back to topic I intended to highlight. Please read comment of Araingang and then my reply to understand this. The topic was NEVER about whether or not Muslims were blamed for 1857 to a greater extent. It was about false accusation that pak nationalism started in response to hindutva when the truth is exactly opposite.
            On topic of ulemas and other elites fighting jihad with british, that was only till their dream of getting back their old ‘Colony’ back from british, once that was clearly not possible, the tune changes and very drastically !!

            Now you can carry on with your discussion.

          3. You make the mistake that Paknationalism started in 1857, the concept of Pakistan did not even exist until 1930 and the name Pakistan was first adopted by the Muslim League in 1940.

            If you were referring to ”Muslim” nationalism, yes that started after 1857. After 1857, the Deoband Movement came about which talked about pan-Islamism and made efforts in spreading this idea across India and wider Muslim world. Ironically, this movement was also against Pakistan and the Muslim League.

            This is a fault in your worldview, because you are looking at history from the scope of modern Indian politics which is Muslim Vs Hindu these days, all Muslims being associated with Pakistan and Pakistan nationalism.

          4. I am not putting any date on any nationalism. Just contesting the claim made by Araingang where pak nationalism is effect of hindu nationalism.

            There can surely be nuances in muslim/pak nationalism as you explain. But the worldview presented by OP is even narrower and rests on exclusive blame shifting on to hindutva as is in vogue these days. The genesis of later Pak movement & many of those ideas can be surely taken back to 1857 and its effects. Those facts however are completely ignored due to preconceived narrative on part of OP

          5. Muslim nationalism is much older than Paknationalism, but Paknationalism (the idea that Muslims should have their own country) was particularly in response to the growing Hindu nationalism in the 1920s and 1930s.

            One can argue that Hindu nationalism was in response to Muslim nationalism, but not Pak nationalism.

            Even today, some extreme Paknationalist theories about Pakistan being Indus civilization only exist online, as a way to counter Hindutva’s online influence. There is no actual discussion on such theories within Pakistan and no mainstream media in Pakistan has every forwarded these theories.

            In contrast, you have significant portion of Indian media that seek to forward fantastical Hindutva theories about Akhand Bharat and misinformation about Muslims.

          6. Keep choosing betwen pOtato ,ptAto or any other combinations. HIndu nationalism was a reaction not other way around.

            Lets not talk about people who talk about MBQ being first pakistani (or Araingang who tried to push back that date to IVC in podcast) in any higher respect than anyone sprouting fantastical Hindutva fantasies.

          7. Muslims have been ruling for almost 1000 years in the Indian subcontinent. If Hindu nationalism was a “reaction” then why was this 900 years too late?

          8. 1000 years? India, whole of it? Nation states/ Nationalism come much later in world history. Also read about Marathas when not watching your main stream media !

            And you diss fantastical hindu right fantasies… you have thoughts matching them !

          9. If Hinduism was one religion, and India was one country, surely they had 900 years to organize and react. But they didn’t, so it throws doubt over Hindus having any conception of themselves as a ‘nation” before the arrival of the British who defined them as being ‘not Moslems’.

            And the Maratha fetish seems to be a purely modern concoction. The Sindhis, Punjabis, the Rajputs, the Bengalis and most definitely the Hindustanis, all hated them and just ranked them slightly better than the Afghans in pillaging and plundering. Anyone I don’t want to get into discussing the Marathas so pip pip. I think we can agree to disagree but I mostly agree with Araingang, except the theories about Pak being some Indus civilization. (not sure if he made such claims)

          10. Lol hindu nationalism cannot exist before nation state existed, same for india as country.

            Shia, sunni, arab, Persian, Turks all hate each other and have killed more in between them than Marathas ever have. Still there exist pan Islamism fantasies hindus nationalism have far less barrier.

          11. That’s fine by me, at least you accept that the Marathas are being repainted in a modern light as Hindu warriors saving Hindus from Mughal rule, rather than foreign brigands they were considered back then by Hindus/Muslims alike in the north. It might even be good for modern Indian nation building to repaint them as such, as they did shatter the myth of Muslim invincibility in India.

            Key difference though with Islam is that Islam’s pan Islamism is coded into its very fabric as it’s found in Quran and also preached by Prophet Muhammad himself. So Shias/Sunnis/Turks/Afghans/Arabs etc etc can continue feuding but they eventually have to align with the texts because texts are of primary important in Islamic religion. Such a parallel is not found in Hinduism, so India will need probably a couple of centuries of state building to really hammer pan-Hinduism into something that won’t be lost in decline.

  25. I agree with Qureishi for the most part. Indians and Pakistanis have diverged (and will keep on diverging) , and all this EU stuff is mostly fantasy.

    1. “I agree with Qureishi for the most part. Indians and Pakistanis have diverged (and will keep on diverging) , and all this EU stuff is mostly fantasy.”

      I already said it’s not going to happen in our lifetime.

      Just positing that a future potential ‘Akhand Bharat’ needn’t mean one party subsuming the other and that it can take other forms. Whether that’s EU or a US-Mexico or a US-Canada or a South East Asia like setup who knows.

      Not holding my breath for it and definitely wouldn’t want it as long as Islamic terrorism is still a thing.

      Talking of sectarian violence, here’s IRA – Indian Reunification Association.
      Have a look at it and have a laugh.
      https://twitter.com/INReunification

      1. Leaving aside the fantasy, why would any sane Indian, Pak, or Bangladeshi want reunification? What exactly will be achieved by that? As if, these current countries are doing a superb job of handling their problems. What we have already, we can hardly make sense, but we want more.

        Also, none of 3 countries have some unique advantages that we will trade the shit out of each other. Pakistani can dig as much as they want in Baluchistan, and we can dredge the whole Arabian sea, we aren’t getting no oil or gold. So all this EU advantages are exaggerated. We can hardly handle an open/porous border with BD and Nepal. Pakistanis are fencing their border with Afghans.

        Lets be real here.

        1. 1) Forget Bangladesh even Nepal doesn’t give two hoots about India. Other than its size India is a low-tier country. No one admires us but for our size.
          2) Islam and a just peace are incompatible. There is a reason for perpetual trouble in the Middle East.
          3) Pakistani Gernails are bail-buddhi (pig headed) jats who lack the skill in negotiating trade deals and other arrangements, Indian babus are closet socialists sleeping on the job. Both pawn their biases as skill in six dimensional chess.
          4) Pakistanis get excited about Riqo Diq, Thar Coal, Deep sea natural gas, CPEC, etc. because they are losers and they know it, hoping that a miracle would save them.
          5) I do not see a Pakistani entrepreneur expanding, making money and creating jobs in India. They can’t even do anything great on their home-ground. otoh Pakistan would never let Indian businesses compete freely.

          All money is good money but given the headache involved I do agree that there are better things to do in life and more suitable people to spend time with.

          6) Indian businesses can easily take over Pakistani market in automobile, petroleum products, produce, chemicals, steel(?), Aluminum, ….

          Did you know Mahindra and Mahindra group was originally Muhammad and Mahindra?

        2. The fundamental question is that of security. How will we keep Indian’s safe from Pakistani terrorism when it is an entire state dedicated to that sole purpose ? Pakistan is already responsible for a genocide, but the Pakistani state was allowed to keep functioning.

          The Pakistan situation is sui generis IMO, for the first time in history, a state based on ethnic, religious and racial hatred has come into sustenance. Its like Nazi Germany with a much larger and stronger Jewish country bordering it.

          1. “How will we keep Indian’s safe from Pakistani terrorism when it is an entire state dedicated to that sole purpose”

            …. so the solution to that is re-unification?

        3. Demographics is not on the ‘Hindu’ side. Many Hindu majority states are already below replacement level while several districts in UP, Bihar, Bengal and Assam are already anywhere between 20-50% Muslim, if not more.

          I think Muslims will have a much bigger say in the Hindi belt within next few decades, the East probably much sooner.

  26. “History has been very cruel to posers – like the farce where Illyrians kept calling themselves Romans. And Romans used to call them Barbarians.

    *************************************

    Pundits obsession with ’ancient’ and ’classics’ (Greece, Rome) sometimes is comical. Who were Illyrians? That was a Roman name for Serbian tribes who lived in Dalmatia (coastal part of former Yu). Romans fought them for hundreds of years until they got settlement. This settlement was a moment when Roman Republic became the Empire. Illyrians got Roman citizenship and all privileges, but they were obliged to send conscripts in the Roman Army. Their legions became the elite, iron fist of Roman Army based primarily on their physical predispositions (taller than Nordics :-).

    Roman Army became the key recruiting field for future emperors. There are a couple dozens of Serbian Roman Emperors. They were instrumental in both, introducing and fighting Christianity. For e.g.a Serb Diocletian fiercely fought Christians while his successors co-Emperors, Licinius and Constantine legalised Christianity (we will revisit this topic). A bit later Serb Julian tried to revive paganism while his successor Jovian (pron. Yovian), born in Belgrade, returned to Christianity again (btw, any resemblance Yovian-Yavan?). Yovian or Yovan are one of the most frequent Serbian names (surname Yovanovic).

    That was the time when the center of Roman Empire shifted to today’s Serbia, the capitol was Sirmium (or Serbium), today’s Sremska Mitrovica, 40 km from Belgrade. The Emperors lived there, it had a Colosseum bigger than Romans and all other facilities. Diocletian only spent two weeks of his life in Rome, he retired from his position and left to his successors (Tetrarchy) and the rest of his life he spent growing cabbage in his garden. There is the most fertile land in Europe. Ten kilometres from S.Mitrovica is a town of Ruma which has the same original name as the city of Rome given by its founders, Serbian tribes Etruscans and Sabines. Sirmium was the place where all Empire’s money was minted for hundreds of years.

    Even Wikipedia started writing about Illyrian Emperors. Justinian and his uncle Emperor Justin were some of them. Interesting, there was not ONE Greek emperor (neither ‘classic’ nor modern), Greek state did not exist (first was created in 1829AC) and whole former Yugoslavia and Greece were a Roman province – Illyric! Not one Greek legion or legionnaire (so much from ‘classics’). And, million of those ‘posers’ suddenly disappeared overnight when so-called Slavics came from Ukraine or so? Villains say that both, Illyrians and Slavics are actually the same people – Serbs. And, those ‘posers’, 2000 years before that posed that they were Aryans when Romans, Greeks and all these ‘classics’ still did not exist… There is no end to the story…

  27. I think Muslims will have a much bigger say in the Hindi belt within next few decades, the East probably much sooner.

    provide numbers otherwise u bullshit

  28. Projections require accurate estimate of future TFR, the estimates based on many non-quantitavie factors, which I am not qualified to make. What is clear however is Muslim TFR is higher than Hindu TFR and any new population growth in India currently in many states seems to be only Muslim or majority Muslim. You can wait for the next Indian census which is around the corner. Perhaps that will give a clearer trajectory.

  29. Projections require accurate estimate of future TFR, the estimates based on many non-quantitavie factors, which I am not qualified to make.

    this is why you use high and low bound estimates like the UN

    basically you’re just bullshitting

  30. If most South Asians have more than 50 percent West Eurasian ancestry (mostly Indus), then how come most South Asians are brown to black skinned rather than light skinned? I am aware of the fact that skin colour is determined by a handful of genes but from your assertion, one would expect most South Asians including ones from India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to be light skinned like Puerto Ricans. But from my observation, the inhabitants of most South Asian countries are medium brown to dark skinned with a handful of light skinned people. But it it is opposite for Pakistan and some of the Indian states bordering it (Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab). The only exceptions to this rule are Bhutan, Sikkim and a major portion of North East India who are racially and ethnically distinct from the rest of South Asia.

    you sound like a moron.

    natural selection idiot

    (a fair amount of evidence that europeans have been subject to depigmentation since separation from common ancestors with ~ANI/IVC)

    1. Can you tell us in one sentence when was approximately this separation and what was the reason for depigmentation?

      Evolution (‘natural selection’) is also visible among Serbs where 70% of babies and toddlers look ‘Nordic’, being very blonde and having blue eyes (due to close genetic kinship btw I1 and I2) but some of them later change, probably due to warmer climate. For e.g. Italian and Greek babies are never blonde.

      1. Not needed answer. I can see there is a literature about this, although, it seems pretty distorted. It is impossible writing about ‘depigmentation’ without mentioning Vincha.

  31. 2) Islam and a just peace are incompatible. There is a reason for perpetual trouble in the Middle East.

    you asked me to do more than insult you as a midwit. this sort of assertion is why i insult you as such. it seems very plausible. BUT, in the early 20th century islam was viewed as a feminized quiescent religion. muscular xtianity was on the march. lothrop stoddard wrote a ‘contrarian’ book in the 20s arguing that islam was about to resurge (he was right).

    your reductive assertions are emotive and not useful in *understanding* you just make a lot of boring cookie-cutter assertions based on marginal understanding of historical facts and a quick-pass superficial analysis.

  32. “BUT, in the early 20th century islam was viewed as a feminized quiescent religion”

    As viewed by whom exactly?

  33. europeans conquering all the muslim lands or making them protectorates as well as the sex tourists who went to places like morocco for liberal attitudes toward sex btwn males

  34. Razib puts it best – ideology may not be as important as we think. What matters is the traction it has in the target population. Though Hindutva as an ideology existed since the 20s, it had minimal traction or effect on the vast majority of the Hindu populace. So Arain may want to re-examine his theory about Hindutva being a non-factor due to fear of Patel. In 1946 elections, Muslims gave 87% to League while Hindus and every other community banded behind Congress’ pluralist platform. Hindu Mahasabha got all of zero seats. Till the late 80s BJP had all of 2 seats in the house. I’d think the current Hindutva has little to do with that of the 20s. It’s instead plainly a very delayed reaction to the continuing Islamism and pandering thereof by the Indian left.

    1. Well put. But you have to remember how politicaly motivated the ethnonationalist islamoapologist pak punjabi birdari gang is. They want to do everything in the power to paint their sworn bogey man as evil. Logical fallicies, especially strawman, red herrings, and racialized adhominem, when they lose control, are their favorite strategic methods to distort the truth.

      Araingang’s main goal is to justify partition on civilizational,cultural, and racial grounds. If he has to overemphasize the Nazi, largely exclusively literary connection, he will, while hypocritically ignoring the actual Nazi behavior of the genocidal Pak army in Bangladesh and Pak’s current worse treatment of minorties than India’s.

      1. There is nothing wrong with justifying partition on civilizational, cultural, religious or racial grounds. Most of this is really a reaction to Indians (Hindutva or Secular) claiming that all Indians are one nation and Pakistan is part of that nation (when history of the region is proof that India is the land of many several different nations that were never really united in any true sense). Pushing such a narrative thereby is taken as a direct threat to the Pakistani state, as India is seen suspiciously as trying to craft a narrative to take over this land . Indian actions in Kashmir since 47 just confirms that notion to Pakistanis who mostly don’t want much to do with India nor identify with its history. Recent theories about some magical IVC civilization is just another battleground between the two camps, both are completely delusional in my opinion. IVC was 3500 years ago, and it’s relevance is not even an iota over zero to modern politics, so its funny when the two groups are fighting over whether IVC was Hindu or not.

        Also this notion of Congress being some leftist organization, it was an umbrella organization in the 40’s which included many leftists but just as many hardcore Hindus, most of those lost power after Gandhi was assassinated. There is a reason why Muslim League was not successful amongst Muslims in 1937 but became widely popular by 1946 it was because Congress has lost any appeal to the Muslim voter because it was seen as a party of Hindus.

        1. “India is seen suspiciously as trying to craft a narrative to take over this land”

          To do what ? Pakistan has a 3.56 fertility rate and imports food. Even if we could contain the Islamic extremism, how would India benefit economically ?

          1. Is India benefiting economically by holding onto its peripheral regions that are in open rebellion?

            Don’t ask me that question because you and everyone here knows that it has less to do with any economic logic and more to do with unfulfilled fantasies. A united subcontinent is just going to be bad news for its Hindu population. You don’t want that, we don’t want that, but because the region shared a common historical thread for the past 1000 years or so, a significant chunk of the Indian population (religious and otherwise) would be more than willing to add the Pakistani lands and either subjugate its people (fantasy) – OR somehow peacefully reunite everyone (which is even a bigger fantasy), OR force/convince Pakistan to fall into the Indian sphere to pacify Hindu sensibilities regarding ”past wrongdoing” (too late for that to happen now).

            Best case scenario is to just resolve Kashmir and move on, but it hasn’t happened in 73 years and not going to happen diplomatically anytime soon, nor does it seem like it will happen militarily now.

            So now, everyone gets to fight online over ‘civilizational, racial, cultural and religious’ similarities/differences and fight over something as irrelevant as the religious makeup of IVC four thousand years ago.

        2. “Pushing such a narrative thereby is taken as a direct threat to the Pakistani state, as India is seen suspiciously as trying to craft a narrative to take over this land .”

          Few people in India talk or care about Akhand Bharat. Even fewer do it unironically. A lot of these latter people however are on the internet. As I said earlier, for most people Pakistan doesn’t exist except as a punching bag for its nuisance value.

          I find the opposite truer, Pakistani pundits keep bringing up Akhand Bharat to justify the military’s stranglehold over the country. Reminds me of the ‘5th Generation Warfare’ meme that keeps doing the round of Pakistani Twitter but which not even the most active online folks in India have heard of.

          Most Indians except for Aman ki Asha types will be more than happy with clearly demarcated borders and no interaction.

          1. Problem is that this “5th Gen Warfare” is very real

            https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-india-55232432?__twitter_impression=true

            https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50749764

            Quora, Reddit, Facebook, Youtube or the comments section of any newspaper, Indian posters make it a point to spread a negative image of Pakistan to a Western audience. Even go to a comments section of a Pakistani English newspaper and half the posters are either Indian or Indians pretending to be Pakistanis. Their common themes include “Pakistanis are just Hindu converts”, “IVC has nothing to do with Pakistan”, “Pakistanis are terrorists” etc etc

            If one or two people do it thats fine but a significant chunk of half a billion people with internet access do it, it becomes a big deal for the other side who only sees this side of India.

            Both India and Pakistan are artifically crafted nation states, they are not based on a common ethnicity or language or race, so they have to create a new mythology to strengthen the foundations of their state. I dont see anything wrong with this at all.

  35. “Is India benefiting economically by holding onto its peripheral regions that are in open rebellion?”

    Umm, there is a big difference between holding onto existing territories and acquiring new ones. There is not a single modern nation state that has willingly given up large tracts of land unless defeated militarily or compelled by external powers.

    “unfulfilled fantasies”

    This begs the question. Why would India fantasize about capturing a rapidly growing population which isnt even agriculturally self sufficient ?

  36. //there is a big difference between holding onto existing territories and acquiring new ones.//

    Except many (north) Indians haven’t come out of partition mode and still think the lands of Pakistan are part of their historical territory that should come back to India. India is not a nation but a group of nations, and its claim to being one country is its appeal to some concept of an “ancient Indian civilization” but much of that history is in Pakistan.

    //Why would India fantasize about capturing a rapidly growing population //

    Exactly, why? I explained my theory in the previous post. What’s your theory?

    1. I agree to an extent, but no one in his right mind even in north India, wants to conquer Pakistan. As I have said earlier , media exaggerates all this akhand india pathologies a lot.

      Apart from Punjabis who form a minuscule population in india there are no historical linkages of rest of India’s North Indian population with Pakistan regions. No temples , no historical sites etc were of any significant importance for North Indians, not just now , but for 100s of years. That’s why I had earlier remarked all this recent temple restoration by Pakistan will be a damp squib. There is just no emotional attachment to Pakistan regions for North Indians.

      Just like “ go to Pakistan “ in India is just a phrase rather than really asking someone to go. Similarly all this “ akhand bharat” is just another fantasy without any real impulse behind it.

    2. “What’s your theory?”

      Pakistanis are coping with buyer’s remorse. If people end up buying something that they didnt really want, they reassure themselves that they got something others really wanted.

      1. That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, what buyers remorse? Nobody alive today created Pakistan for any such thing feelings. You seem to believe the ‘India Superpower 2020’ memes and that everyone wants to be part of India.

        This is the point I made in the original post to which you replied, Pakistan has already differentiated itself from India and created or is in the process of creating its own cultural, religious, civilizational, racial basis for its existence, just like India created or is in the process of creating its own cultural, religious, civilizational, racial basis to create the basis of their country despite having several different nations within its boundaries.

        1. Yeah so, why does India want to take over Pakistan ? You still havent given us a single good reason.

Comments are closed.