Subscribe
41 Comments
Point isn’t about genetics but civilizational inheritance.
India itself has a large number of “Ashraf” Muslims as well as Afghans (Rohillas as well as older).
Parsis are an elite class in India (hits way above their weight) and India even had a half Parsi PM.
Also has a lot of mixed race white people in the elite – Rahul Gandhi is half Italian. Anglo Indians are a prominent group (although declining). Globalization is leading to a new breed – With the Indians going abroad for studies and meeting their white partners and bringing them back OR the white partner coming to India as an expat (Mumbai/Delhi/Bangalore/Goa have huge expat populations) and meeting their Indian partner. Their kids will grow up as “Indians”. This will only accelerate as India gets richer.
But none of this means that the Republic of India can claim the Ummayads, the Durranis, the Sassanids, the Romans etc etc.
Not discussing the ethics of it but what is true on the ground.
Thing is elites of India come in touch with white people majorly both outside and inside India.
When they go out for studies, they usually go to universities in the west (mostly the Anglo world) where the student body is mostly white. You must have seen this in Cambridge.When foreigners come to India it is usually to manage/facilitate the Indian branch of some company from their home countries. Because most of these global companies are from the west, they inevitably turn out to be white. Although a sizeable Japanese/Korean expat community has come up in recent years (A post to be made some day about how Japan/South Korea are helping in India’s industrialization).
Indian-white marriages happen in larger numbers simply because that is who they are around.
In Singapore, Indian-Chinese marriages are common.
Last edited 17 days ago by Bombay Badshah
As an aside, India’s foreign minister Jaishankar is married to a Japanese woman who he met while working in the Indian embassy in Japan.
Ex-Indian hockey captain, Manpreet Singh is married to a Malaysian woman (Malay).
I do think Indian-Asian (both East and Southeast) will rise in the coming years as India gets richer and integrates more into “Asia” leading to more people to people contact. In fact might even surpass Indian-White marriages simply due to demographics and distance.
Author
Imran Khan’s is from Oxford tribe…
https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/social-media-users-ridicule-imran-khan-on-his-haqqani-
gaffe20210916144344/
All Pakistani Muhajirs I know acknowledge their cultural group as the primary marker of origin (Delhi, UP, Lucknow, Hyderbad, Bihar, Memon etc) however almost all claim non-Indian patrilineaneal descent. In Islam, patrileneal descent is what matters more and it is the primary identity of your tribe which is why this is more emphasized by Muslims, unlike Hinduism where just your caste is emphasized.
‘Caste’ sometimes matters amongst Muslims as well. These are are Ashraf castes in Karachi like:
Arab descent: Syed, Sheikh (siddiqui/farooqui)
Non-Arab descent: Mughal, Iranian or Pathan.
There are also some non-Ashraf occupation based castes in minority, but I don’t know much about their patrilineal claims.
Most Ashraf flexed their lineage because they were part of the ruling elite in pre modern subcontinent, and also a core part of the British administration. Syeds are the worse in flexing because they claim descent from the Ahle Bayt, who have a special status in Shia Islam as well as non-Arab Sunni Islam. The Syeds are the least likely to outmarry, even amongst other Ashrafs but otherwise Ashrafs intermarry each other or Punjabis, and are more concerned about ethnicity or educational background than with caste.
Because of this claim of non-Indian descent, Pakistani Muhajirs – especially the generation born in Pakistan do not care much about India or Indian roots. I find that there is very little curiosity about India and only those who still keep in touch with extended families really have any idea about what’s going on there.
Similarity or difference in autosonmal DNA does not change anything, infact it has given people more ammo to be racist to each other as naturally people always focus on the differences than similarities.
Author
yes Hinduism is like Christianity; the status of the mother is VERY important (purity).
Islam has no such qualms; the11th Imams was Black (mother was Nubian).
That is why BB is wrong; the Mopillahs of Kerala are not inventing Arab Fathers nor the Malaysian Muslims their Yemeni, Hardamuti or Omani fathers.
It is preserved in genealogical memories; Arabs have to remember 10 generations of fathers.
Author
Shi’ite Sayyids are different altogether. Sunni Sayyids seems a very unreliable lineage.
our late beloved grandmama (Paternal) was a Shi’ite Sayyid (Abid) from Amroha (Nagana Saadat), as we like to joke; the factory of Sayyids. the Shijrih is VERY well-maintained and rigorous (they inherited the Persian obsession with ancestry since the Shi’ite Sayyids are so Persianised)..
that is not true that Pakistani Muhajirs are ambivalent about their Indian roots; it depends again on a class gradient.
I do find that Shiite Syeds are more dogmatic than Sunni Syeds for outmarriage.. I think this has to do with more Shia emphasis on lineage and its status in Shia Islam
I find that Syeds are the only muhajir group in Pakistan that heavily marry into cousins while other muhajir groups usually avoid. This is in stark contrast with Sindhis and Punjabis where 50% of marriages are between first cousins.
Pakistani muhajirs of this new generation are quite apathetic about Indian culture or roots. The older generation may remember their hometown or may have relatives but the newer ones do not nor do they care. I find a lot of parallels between American view of Britian or Germany and Pakistani Muhajir view of India amongst the new generation.
And what about “Canadian” Muhajirs? 😂
At least Pakistani Muhajirs still speak a common language.
Don’t see how second generation Canadians will particularity care.
In a way, Pakistan at the end of the day was basically a rest stop for a few decades. Centuries in India then permanently in Canada for the foreseeable future.
Last edited 15 days ago by Bombay Badshah
Author
Not really, both Shiite and Sunni Syeds in South Asia are autosomnally local (95%). Trace amounts of ancestry are not always detected accurately and Ydna is not always an indication since Syed status was so cherished in Central Asian Sufism that often it also passed down maternally and it was accepted.
In a pre-modern world, not easy to fake ancestry or tribe just like that
Last edited 15 days ago by S Qureishi
@X.T.M: A reply to this comment you made in @Kabir’s thread.
“That is the trade-off; Pakistani Muslims are not subordinated. there is a discount in being Muslim in India.”
But many Pakistani Muslims do make that trade-off every year, including our very own Pakistani members.
Pakistan loses more than a million people a year and now has the highest net migration in the world.
Net Outflow: Pakistan currently has a significantly higher net outflow than India. In 2024, Pakistan’s net migration was approximately -1.4 million, nearly double India’s -630,000. This suggests that while many people leave India, a larger number of people also move to India compared to those moving to Pakistan.
Now of course I am not saying that the gap between India and Pakistan is equal to the gap between say Canada and Pakistan but at certain point, most Pakistanis think the trade-off is worth it.
Who knows – a much richer more liberal India in 30 years might see Pakistanis migrating to India.
Access to common language, food, culture is a plus point. Basically a developed Pakistan.
That’s why even non Kannada South Indians love Bangalore and prefer it to Mumbai or Delhi.
Last edited 17 days ago by Bombay Badshah
Well Kabir continues to delete comments on ‘his’ threads. The proverbial one bad apple issue. In fact, on his thread, he bald-facedly jumped into a conversation I was having with SQ, proceeded to ‘warn him’ from engaging with me, and misrepresented my position. When I responded with a clarification and my actual viewpoint, he deleted it. If you “don’t want to engage with me”, then why jump into a conversation with another commenter simply to bad-mouth and misrepresent me. These are all acts of bad faith.
The solution is simple – basic decency and good manners – mutual respect for co-authors’ contribution and no silly random deletes without cause. But until said bad apple agrees, here we are.
Passive aggression.
You are no one to speak of bad faith. You’ve “misrepresented” my positions countless times. I’m not going to list all the examples here.
“Silly random deletes without cause”– I’ve told you that you are banned from my threads. I do not care what you write. Any comments you make on my posts will be summarily deleted.
You are free to “clarify” whatever you want on your own threads which I am free to not read. I will not tolerate a single anti-Pakistan remark on my threads. And I am the judge of what is anti-Pakistan–Not you.
BB: “Who knows – a much richer more liberal India in 30 years might see Pakistanis migrating to India.”
This is not going to happen. India is becoming (if it is not already) a majoritarian Hindu state. No self-respecting Pakistani Muslim is going to “migrate” there.
Pakistanis leave Pakistan for the secular West not for a Hindu-majority country.
Kabir: Pakistanis leave Pakistan for the secular West not for a Hindu-majority country.
India is as “secular” as the west.
Pointing out “Hindutva” while not pointing out the rising White Supremacy in the west is a choice.
Many Western countries even have Christianity as an official religion. India doesn’t have one.
Author
“Official religion” isn’t the point.
Muslims are increasingly a beleaguered minority in India. Why would any Pakistani Muslim want to move there given that this person has a choice to move to any other country?
You are forgetting that I grew up in a secular state– the United States. The “Ten Commandments” cannot even be put up in public schools since this is against separation of church and state.
I never felt insecure about being Muslim in the US except during the height of the “War on Terror” years and that too mostly at airports.
The same cannot be said about Muslims in India. The evidence is lynchings on suspicion of transporting beef or being made to say “Jai Shree Ram”. India and the US are not comparable.
Author
I don’t think this is fair.
I defend Pakistan because it is an important part of my identity. My parents were born there and educated there. Two of my grandparents were born there (albeit it was “British India” at the time).
I have no problem with the “Saffroniate” defending India.
What I do have a problem with is pretending that India is not a majoritarian Hindu state. The eminent historian Romila Thapar claims that it is.
The tragedy is that India was not meant to be a majoritarian state. It was meant to belong to all its citizens. It’s still technically a constitutionally secular state.
Pakistan was intended as a Muslim homeland.
What I do have a problem with is pretending that India is not a majoritarian Hindu state. The eminent historian Romila Thapar claims that it is.
We can all pick and choose our sources to support positions we’ve already taken. Many of Romila Thapar’s positions are now questioned and to some extent even debunked because she came to practice Indian history with a certain persuasion and indulged in barely veiled propagandized history. Not very different from the Audrey Truschkes of the world.
Also speaks volumes of the values of the so called majority that has made its state so majoritarian that the population of the so-called beleaguered minority has grown from well under 10% to an estimated 17% today (at the expense of the majority). Hell, we even found Pakistanis living illegally in India in the aftermath of Op. Sindoor. At the end of the day, people vote with their feet. For all the rhetoric here, Muslims are objectively doing better in India than in Pakistan barring the exception of the kleptocratic Pakistani elite of course.
Romila Thapar is the preeminent Indian historian. I will go with her views versus those of a random person on the internet.
“Muslims are objectively doing better in India”– India has never had a Muslim prime minister.
Muslims are ruling ourselves in Pakistan rather than living on the sufferance of Hindus in India.
I know where I would rather be.
Author
we always try to be fair
Jai Hind
Pakistan Zindabad
Vande Matarm
Bharat Mata Ki Jai
as one of our distant kin posted outside his house (presumably in Urdu since that was the language everyone read and spoke then) in Lahore during the madness of Partition.
“Moslems, Sikhs and Hindus are all brothers — but, O my Brothers, this house belongs to a Parsee.”
Reminds me of some of the discussions here regarding race –
The claim depends on treating South Asian Muslims as a single block. They are not one block. The genetic record is a gradient, and on that gradient several specific populations carry foreign ancestry that exceeds what local conversion alone would produce. Most South Asian Muslims are autosomally close to their Hindu neighbours. That is the modal story. It is not the only story.
The NorthWestern Muslims
Working strongest to softest.
Pashtuns. Y-DNA from Pashtun samples differentiates them from Punjabi and Sindhi neighbours. Elevated R1a-Z93 patterns with Central Asian distributions, alongside meaningful J2 and G. The autosomal work under Reich and Narasimhan places northwest Pakistani populations at a higher Steppe MLBA fraction and closer to Iran-related reference groups than most South Asian samples. The signal is layered, not pure, but it is not reducible to local conversion.
Baloch. Baloch populations cluster genetically nearer to Iranians than to neighbouring South Asian groups in multiple studies. Linguistic and genetic records agree. The serious reading is ethnolinguistic and partial-genealogical affinity with the Iranian plateau, not fabrication.
Hazaras. Mongol-period East Asian admixture is documented in Y-DNA, autosomal data, and visible phenotype. The Genghisid and Chagatai military lineage stories have a real substrate, even where specific descent claims overshoot.
Sayyids. J1 is not uniquely Arab. Sample selection in Sayyid datasets is uneven, and endogamy with drift can inflate signal. With those caveats noted, Sayyid lineages still carry elevated J1 frequencies relative to non-Sayyid neighbours across multiple South Asian samples. The distribution is non-random in a direction consistent with the documentary record. That residual signal is inconsistent with wholesale fabrication.
Ashraf and the families that became Mohajir. Two questions need separating. Cultural Persianisation, Persian as a court tongue, marriage within a narrow circle, is well documented and does not by itself imply foreign descent. The genetic question is separate. In the elite endogamous urban Ashraf with documented Persian and Arab patrilines, West Asian and Iranian Y-signal sits above the Hindu-neighbour baseline. In the broader self-identified Ashraf population, autosomal profiles are close to regional neighbours. The narrow elite claim survives. The mass claim does not.
Inflation, not invention
Patrilineal claims overshooting the genetic record is a subcontinental feature, not a Pakistani vice. Brahmin and upper-caste origin stories invoke Vedic and Aryan descent, and the Steppe MLBA component in upper-caste North Indians is real, partial, and short of the mythic claim. The error on every side is inflation, not invention. BB asks us to treat one side’s inflation as documentary embarrassment and the other side’s as ordinary mythology. That asymmetry is what fails.
The Narrative
The deeper problem is the frame. BB writes as if identity is fixed by paternal chromosomes, and as if speaking for what the Muslims of South Asia may or may not claim about themselves is his to do. Run the same logic on caste. By BB’s standard a Dalit who becomes Brahmin by status or marriage is fabricating fathers. So is anyone whose family rose. The framework is genetic determinism, selectively applied. Muslim self-identification is documentary embarrassment. Caste mobility is ordinary social fact. That is not science. It is gatekeeping in genetic costume.
What is actually at stake
Indian Islam has caste, but it has never produced a closed varna system. The Ashraf, the apex of Muslim South Asian social order, did not ossify in the way Brahmin and Kshatriya orders did. Lines between Sayyid, Sheikh, Mughal, and Pathan were porous. Conversion ran upward, downward, and lateral. Marriage crossed boundaries that Hindu caste would not. The result is a hierarchical but fluid order, with a foreign-origin claim at the top that was never frozen into ritual.
That fluidity threatens the Hindu-nationalist account of the subcontinent, in which Indian Islam is a recent overlay on a fundamentally Hindu population. The Ashraf were not an overlay. They were a ruling order, with live categories, capable of acting as a political class. That is what produced 1947. Pakistan was constituted because the categories were alive enough to act through, not because anyone fabricated paperwork in the months before partition.
From Karachi to Lucknow
These families are heirs of the Indo-Islamic millennium. Their identity is not partition nostalgia. They are not entirely indigenous, and they were never asked to be. The indigenisation project, which BB is performing in miniature, is the demand that they retroactively become so. The Y-chromosome is the costume. The argument is over whether a thousand years of Persianate, Arab-claiming, Turkic-recalled ruling-class identity can be dissolved back into the soil on demand.
The fathers were not fabricated. The demand to swap them is.