Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Classify Dardic people Pakistan?
Topic Started: Feb 8 2013, 02:27 AM (6,071 Views)
Dardic
Banned
 *  *
asingh
Feb 8 2013, 05:52 PM
Dardic
Feb 8 2013, 05:49 PM
asingh
Feb 8 2013, 05:43 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
^ yes, I have even met kashmiri hindus who call themselves kashmiri and never Indian, of course the muslims ones will never call themselves Indian. it's just a matter of nationalistic pride and preserving ones identity, they dont want to be called something which they are not, it makes sense


How can it make sense....? I really do not get you. They are a part of India. What passports do these people hold. What are they...? Kashmiri. Oh heck..I am Pahari. So I am not Indian..! :) It again shows elitism.
passports are pieces of paper. they dont change ones culture. Kashmiri culture is quiet different from the indian plain cultures, look at their foods, clothing, lifestyles etc...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deccan Wanderer
Full Member
 *  *  *
Dardic
Feb 8 2013, 05:31 PM
^ well originally most of us wanted our independent state, but since that wasn't possible, we settled for Pakistan, since like I said it is a multiracial state, while India is mostly a Indid state, at least 95% of the population. Most of us dont wanted to be part of some thing we are not (Indians), I think kashmiries from the valley have the same argument

anyways back to the topic, you can pm me if you want to talk further about this


well thanks for answering all the question even if they digressed from the topic. I don't have any more question for now. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
GhostBuster
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Dardic
Feb 8 2013, 05:49 PM
asingh
Feb 8 2013, 05:43 PM
Dardic
Feb 8 2013, 05:12 PM

The reason for that was in those days they had independent kingdoms, there was no India or Pakistan, after 1947 generally the public felt if they would become part of India, the whole area will get Indianized and the locals will loose their culture, since india was much larger culturally . With pakistan being a multi racial state of both indids and iranids, they felt they could preserve their culture better and indeed that has happend


So basically there was a doubt on India. That a culture would be forced on a minority. At time when I interact with Kashmiri people, I get this sense. But people failed to realize how diverse India is, and the huge gamut of culture it allows. Kashmiri people reek or elitism.

^ yes, I have even met kashmiri hindus who call themselves kashmiri and never Indian, of course the muslims ones will never call themselves Indian. it's just a matter of nationalistic pride and preserving ones identity, they dont want to be called something which they are not
My husband's family is a Kashmiri Pandits and every Kashmiri Pandit family I know through them consider themselves Indians. Split is between Kashmiri muslims, most want to be called as Kashmiri and not Indian.
“The world dread nothing so much as being convinced of their errors.”
― William Hazlitt
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
asingh
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Dardic
Feb 8 2013, 05:55 PM
asingh
Feb 8 2013, 05:52 PM
Dardic
Feb 8 2013, 05:49 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep


How can it make sense....? I really do not get you. They are a part of India. What passports do these people hold. What are they...? Kashmiri. Oh heck..I am Pahari. So I am not Indian..! :) It again shows elitism.
passports are pieces of paper. they dont change ones culture. Kashmiri culture is quiet different from the indian plain cultures, look at their foods, clothing, lifestyles etc...


Errrrm....I have lived with Kashmiri people. Sorry. And apart from their language (Dardaric) I find them quite Indic. This way, Tamil Nadu and Kerala and the NE-7 should be the first land-mass to be cut-off from main-land India. You know the problem with Kashmiri people and these thoughts: "we are central Asian, and we invaded India, and settled here.."...but holy joe...we are not Indian. So do not call us Indian, but Kashmiri. You know by this logic, each and every state is what Kashmiri's harp about. And the way you write "INDIAN PLAIN CULTURE", that is not some SSA that you are generalizing. There is huge difference. I am considered a foreigner down south, Madras, and they up here. Are we demanding our own nation, or barking...do not call us this. No. Kashmiri people are elitist.
Gayetri
Feb 8 2013, 06:00 PM
Dardic
Feb 8 2013, 05:49 PM
asingh
Feb 8 2013, 05:43 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
^ yes, I have even met kashmiri hindus who call themselves kashmiri and never Indian, of course the muslims ones will never call themselves Indian. it's just a matter of nationalistic pride and preserving ones identity, they dont want to be called something which they are not
My husband's family is a Kashmiri Pandits and every Kashmiri Pandit family I know through them consider themselves Indians. Split is between Kashmiri muslims, most want to be called as Kashmiri and not Indian.


From the horse's mouth. Thank you.
Edited by asingh, Feb 8 2013, 06:02 PM.
Link for below mentioned:
Koshur
Feb 17 2014, 12:00 AM

India has many Muslims, but not more than Pakistan(at least now) than they like to claim.


Link for below mentioned:
FANBIKE
May 22 2014, 07:47 AM
^^ asingh and I dont trust indian at all.....

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
faintsmile1992
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
They look Irano-Afghan and therefore a branch of the nordiforms (type D).

Dardics and other Hindu Kush groups are culturally conservative as well.

Kalash Religion
Michael Witzel

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/KalashaReligion.pdf
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dardic
Banned
 *  *
asingh
Feb 8 2013, 06:01 PM
Dardic
Feb 8 2013, 05:55 PM
asingh
Feb 8 2013, 05:52 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
passports are pieces of paper. they dont change ones culture. Kashmiri culture is quiet different from the indian plain cultures, look at their foods, clothing, lifestyles etc...


Errrrm....I have lived with Kashmiri people. Sorry. And apart from their language (Dardaric) I find them quite Indic. This way, Tamil Nadu and Kerala and the NE-7 should be the first land-mass to be cut-off from main-land India. You know the problem with Kashmiri people and these thoughts: "we are central Asian, and we invaded India, and settled here.."...but holy joe...we are not Indian. So do not call us Indian, but Kashmiri. You know by this logic, each and every state is what Kashmiri's harp about. And the way you write "INDIAN PLAIN CULTURE", that is not some SSA that you are generalizing. There is huge difference. I am considered a foreigner down south, Madras, and they up here. Are we demanding our own nation, or barking...do not call us this. No. Kashmiri people are elitist.
Gayetri
Feb 8 2013, 06:00 PM
Dardic
Feb 8 2013, 05:49 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
My husband's family is a Kashmiri Pandits and every Kashmiri Pandit family I know through them consider themselves Indians. Split is between Kashmiri muslims, most want to be called as Kashmiri and not Indian.


From the horse's mouth. Thank you.
Well whatever the case is, you can't call Dardic people as Indians, we were never called indians in our history, perhaps kashmiri(hindus) have become indians over the last few centuries of indian influence, not sure. Also yes I agree India is diverse, but generally they are part of the same cultural group (indids) meaning they speak the same groups of languages and their cultures are not very a part, ofcourse a south indian and north indian would be different, but generally the culture differences in India are not that huge to call them separate nations
Edited by Dardic, Feb 8 2013, 06:16 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
faintsmile1992
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Dardics are neither Iranics nor Indics. They're linguistically related the them though, and also to a fourth group, the Nuristani. In turn they're culturally related to the Burushaski, a Hindu Kush group that speak a language isolate and not an Aryan one, and arrived from the Caucasus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sapporo
Member Avatar
Senior Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Dardic
Feb 8 2013, 07:05 AM


blonde hair/blue hair is less, but colour eyes and colored hair among them are a lot, most of my family has those features, Red hair is more common than blonde.

also regarding genetics those numbers are probably from Tajiks, Tajikistan, who are much more mixed. The Pamiri people are probably much more similar, because they have mixed much less with east asians like other Tajiks. also even in those numbers you posted, Tajiks only have less south asian, and bit more east asian. The other numbers are pretty similar. Also by Baloch, I think you mean west asian?


Blonde hair and blue eyes are a tiny minority and colored eyes and colored hair (even more so) are a minority as well. Italy and Spain range from 25-30% colored eyes and the Dardic areas are definitely much less than that overall. Probably close to 10-18% at most. Southern Europeans have colored hair on average around 15% so colored hair in Northern Pakistan and Northeastern Afghanistan is probably closer to 5-10%. Yes, Northern Pakistan has far more colored eyes and hair than anywhere else in South Asia but it's still a minority.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4581457/1/

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4659289/1/

Yes, they are Tajikistan Tajik samples but the majority of Tajiks live in Northern Afghanistan near the Tajikistan border and then Tajikistan itself. Tajikistan Tajiks probably have more East Eurasian (Turkic) admixture than Afghan ones who in turn have more Baloch and South Indian admixture but they shouldn't be so different. I would guess Afghan Tajiks are somewhat closer to Pashtuns than Tajikistan Tajiks are but they overall, they should be fairly close to each other. The majority of Tajiks should have some amount of Turkic admixture anyways excluding isolated Pamiri Tajiks who probably have very little if any.

Wikipedia estimates the Pamiri Tajik population at around 350,000 but it doesn't have a source. I'd say it's even less since they are so isolated in the Pamir mountains. Anyways, that makes them around 1.6% of the 21-23 million Tajik population. They aren't representative of average Tajiks and are a tiny minority.

In the numbers I posted, Tajiks have much less South Indian at 16% less (South Asian as you referred to it), 10% less Baloch (Gedrosia), 5% more Caucasian, 6% more NE Euro and the significant 14-15% East Asian admixture that Pashtuns lack. This makes them cluster very differently than Pashtuns and the Kalash.

The Baloch component is based on the Balochi and Brahui where it reaches its peak. These populations live in the Gedrosia region between Southeastern Iran and Southwestern Pakistan. The Baloch component itself is a West Asian component and related closely to the Caucasian component and to a lesser extent the NE Euro, Mediterranean and SW Asian components.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedrosia

Dardic
Feb 8 2013, 05:55 PM
asingh
Feb 8 2013, 05:52 PM
Dardic
Feb 8 2013, 05:49 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep


How can it make sense....? I really do not get you. They are a part of India. What passports do these people hold. What are they...? Kashmiri. Oh heck..I am Pahari. So I am not Indian..! :) It again shows elitism.
passports are pieces of paper. they dont change ones culture. Kashmiri culture is quiet different from the indian plain cultures, look at their foods, clothing, lifestyles etc...
Kashmiri culture is distinct just like any other ethnic culture in South Asia. It has definite and important influences from South-Central Asia that other South Asian cultures mostly lack but it is still closer to South Asian culture than to Central Asian culture. Kashmiris themselves (including Muslims) are genetically a Northwestern South Asian population.

Also, Kashmiri Muslims are mostly the descendants of Kashmiri Pandits who converted to Islam. Hence, Kashmiris were mostly Hindu before Islam.


faintsmile1992
Feb 8 2013, 06:17 PM
Dardics are neither Iranics nor Indics. They're linguistically related the them though, and also to a fourth group, the Nuristani. In turn they're culturally related to the Burushaski, a Hindu Kush group that speak a language isolate and not an Aryan one, and arrived from the Caucasus.
The Dardic languages are a sub-branch of the Indo-Aryan (Indic) languages. They are closer to Indic languages like Hindi than they are to Farsi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardic_languages

Wikipedia lists its source as Peter K. Austin 's One Thousand Languages: Living, Endangered, and Lost. Austin is a linguistics professor from the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies.

Quoting from the book:

Quote:
 
Kashmiri is one of the twenty-two national languages of India, and belongs to the Dardic group, a non-genetic term that covers about two dozen Indo-Aryan languages spoken in geographically isolated, mountainous northwestern parts of South Asia ..."
Edited by Sapporo, Feb 8 2013, 07:09 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
XLR8R
Member Avatar
Fugacity Trigger
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Dardic
 
but generally the culture differences in India are not that huge to call them separate nations


There are huge differences. Dravidian as a language group is quote distinct from Indo-Aryan, for example. Similarly, many of the North-Eastern people have very different cultures (especially the tribes). None of us consider ourselves non-Indian. I too, have observed the odd thing among Kashmiris - even a few Hindus (not most of them). But, frankly, it is elitism. Dravidian nationalism is another kind of elitism. These fears are frankly unfounded: The Dravidian speaking groups have survived in both India and Pakistan since independence, and so have the NE Indians. I think a lot of this has to do with unfounded fears....

asingh
 
I am considered a foreigner down south, Madras, and they up here.


Imagine my situation then, hehehe ;)

On a side note: You are good looking peoples :)
Edited by XLR8R, Feb 8 2013, 06:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
asingh
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Dardic
Feb 8 2013, 06:09 PM
Well whatever the case is, you can't call Dardic people as Indians, we were never called indians in our history, perhaps kashmiri(hindus) have become indians over the last few centuries of indian influence, not sure. Also yes I agree India is diverse, but generally they are part of the same cultural group (indids) meaning they speak the same groups of languages and their cultures are not very a part, ofcourse a south indian and north indian would be different, but generally the culture differences in India are not that huge to call them separate nations


To be honest the diversity in culture of say a North Indian and Tamilian is far greater than of a Kashmiri vs. a North Indian. Linguistically there is just as much variance. I can after some time make out what Kashmiri people are saying, but no matter what I do, I can not understand Tamilian. You see what I am saying. It is an Apple to Orange comparison, but I really do not hear so many other states singing about being separate and "we are not Indian"; as the Kashmiri people do. This again show elitism, and a mental affinity to outside India. See the language stem of the language group which the Northern Kashmiri brethren speak vs. some of the other paths which are in India. Due to a negation of a veto; and a ruler being Hindu at the time of choice the Kashmiri people (you can say); were forced into India, but it is too bad. Nothing more can be done. These people will be over and over again identified as Indian, no matter how much they try to detract and differentiate themselves from the base. They have no other identity. Even if they do, it is too trivial. Sorry to say. The closeness is too much. You hate it or like it.


faintsmile1992
Feb 8 2013, 06:04 PM
They look Irano-Afghan and therefore a branch of the nordiforms (type D).

Dardics and other Hindu Kush groups are culturally conservative as well.

Kalash Religion
Michael Witzel

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/KalashaReligion.pdf


The Kashmiri people have nothing what so ever to do with the Kalash group. The former is an extremely isolated group, and equating them to a wide demograpic as Kashmiri people is extremely incorrect. Nor are their any religion similarities, apart from Islam -which- we all know; how it was implemented on the said regions. Point being, the Kashmiri people try to show themselves as elite and different (due to their non-Indid looks); and live on fringe ideology. The way you are quoting a Dardaric language stem, India has many more of these, but people are just as happy and not running there own outfits and trying to undermine the motherland. That is the bone of contention here.
Edited by asingh, Feb 8 2013, 08:05 PM.
Link for below mentioned:
Koshur
Feb 17 2014, 12:00 AM

India has many Muslims, but not more than Pakistan(at least now) than they like to claim.


Link for below mentioned:
FANBIKE
May 22 2014, 07:47 AM
^^ asingh and I dont trust indian at all.....

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
caucasus
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
faintsmile1992
Feb 8 2013, 06:17 PM
Dardics are neither Iranics nor Indics. They're linguistically related the them though, and also to a fourth group, the Nuristani. In turn they're culturally related to the Burushaski, a Hindu Kush group that speak a language isolate and not an Aryan one, and arrived from the Caucasus.
so who are they? :confused: :err: interesting fact,never heard
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
faintsmile1992
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
caucasus
Feb 8 2013, 08:06 PM
faintsmile1992
Feb 8 2013, 06:17 PM
Dardics are neither Iranics nor Indics. They're linguistically related the them though, and also to a fourth group, the Nuristani. In turn they're culturally related to the Burushaski, a Hindu Kush group that speak a language isolate and not an Aryan one, and arrived from the Caucasus.
so who are they? :confused: :err: interesting fact,never heard
The Burusho are an ethnicity of the Hindu Kush with a linguitic relationship to peoples from the North Caucasus, and who share with Caucasian peoples specific folklore motifs.

Evidence for Prehistoric Links Between the Caucasus and Central Asia : the Case of the Burushos
Kevin Tuite

http://www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/publications/Origin%20of%20Burushos.pdf
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
caucasus
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
faintsmile1992
Feb 8 2013, 08:58 PM
caucasus
Feb 8 2013, 08:06 PM
faintsmile1992
Feb 8 2013, 06:17 PM
Dardics are neither Iranics nor Indics. They're linguistically related the them though, and also to a fourth group, the Nuristani. In turn they're culturally related to the Burushaski, a Hindu Kush group that speak a language isolate and not an Aryan one, and arrived from the Caucasus.
so who are they? :confused: :err: interesting fact,never heard
The Burusho are an ethnicity of the Hindu Kush with a linguitic relationship to peoples from the North Caucasus, and who share with Caucasian peoples specific folklore motifs.

Evidence for Prehistoric Links Between the Caucasus and Central Asia : the Case of the Burushos
Kevin Tuite

http://www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/publications/Origin%20of%20Burushos.pdf
wow,thanx.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
faintsmile1992
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Also the Burusho are supposed to share a genetic link (NRY C?) with the Basques in the Pyrenees.

Witzel speculates that the peoples of the mountains from the Pyrenees through the Caucasus to the Pamirs preserve traces of lost 'Gondwana' myths within Laurasia in addition to a shared heritage between themselves. To tell the truth I can imagine older myths and folktales surviving best in remote areas just as Mesolithic phenes and certain cantometric styles have survived in the uplands.

You should read The Origins of the World's Mythologies, its fascinating even though its speculative.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angrals
Member Avatar
The Children of Māda
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Strongly Iranid and Irano-Nordoid influenced people, due to isolation, and a few could pass as Kurds.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Eurogenes K13:
North European 7.25%
Mediterranean 15.96%
South Asian 6.79%
Southwest Asian 9.82%
Caucasus 29.97%
West Central Asian 28.20%
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
caucasus
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
quite interesting :)
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dardic
Banned
 *  *
Mordecai


where are you getting these 10-18% range? have you been to the area? with in my own family almost all people have some sort of coloured hair or eyes, mostly brown/redish hair, and brown, hazel and greenish eyes. The real figure for dardics is much higher than 10-18%. you can't really speak if you haven't been to the area

also regarding languages dardic languages are very different from indic languages, I dont even know who came up with these group classifications, in any case, it is the indic languages in the past which were influence by the dardic and indo iranian languages, because proto sanskrit came from outside south asia


Edited by Dardic, Feb 8 2013, 11:28 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sapporo
Member Avatar
Senior Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *
caucasus
Feb 8 2013, 08:06 PM
faintsmile1992
Feb 8 2013, 06:17 PM
Dardics are neither Iranics nor Indics. They're linguistically related the them though, and also to a fourth group, the Nuristani. In turn they're culturally related to the Burushaski, a Hindu Kush group that speak a language isolate and not an Aryan one, and arrived from the Caucasus.
so who are they? :confused: :err: interesting fact,never heard
Dardic is not a genetic term like some people throw around. Neither are Indic nor Iranic for that matter.

As I mentioned before, Dardic is a language group that is a sub-branch of Indo-Aryan (Indic).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardic_languages

Wikipedia's source is Peter K. Austin 's One Thousand Languages: Living, Endangered, and Lost. Austin is a linguistics professor from the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies.

Quoting from the book:

Quote:
 
Kashmiri is one of the twenty-two national languages of India, and belongs to the Dardic group, a non-genetic term that covers about two dozen Indo-Aryan languages spoken in geographically isolated, mountainous northwestern parts of South Asia ..."


Kashmiris are genetically and phenotypically closer to Northwestern South Asian population than they are Dardic speakers further north and west like the Shina or Pashayi.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dardic
Banned
 *  *
XLR8R
Feb 8 2013, 06:58 PM
Dardic
 
but generally the culture differences in India are not that huge to call them separate nations


There are huge differences. Dravidian as a language group is quote distinct from Indo-Aryan, for example. Similarly, many of the North-Eastern people have very different cultures (especially the tribes). None of us consider ourselves non-Indian. I too, have observed the odd thing among Kashmiris - even a few Hindus (not most of them). But, frankly, it is elitism. Dravidian nationalism is another kind of elitism. These fears are frankly unfounded: The Dravidian speaking groups have survived in both India and Pakistan since independence, and so have the NE Indians. I think a lot of this has to do with unfounded fears....

asingh
 
I am considered a foreigner down south, Madras, and they up here.


Imagine my situation then, hehehe ;)

On a side note: You are good looking peoples :)



well I am not sure of people living in India, you guys have been called indians for 60 years, so that's why perhaps you consider yourself. The thread is about Dardics, we were never Indian in our history, why would we want to be part of India? we were always independent
Edited by Dardic, Feb 8 2013, 11:25 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sapporo
Member Avatar
Senior Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Dardic
Feb 8 2013, 11:20 PM


where are you getting these 10-18% range? have you been to the area? with in my own family almost all people have some sort of coloured hair or eyes, mostly brown/redish hair, and brown, hazel and greenish eyes. The real figure for dardics is much higher than 10-18%. you can't really speak if you haven't been to the area

also regarding languages dardic languages are very different from indic languages, I dont even know who came up with these group classifications, in any case, it is the indic languages in the past which were influence by the dardic and indo iranian languages, because proto sanskrit came from outside south asia


It's an estimate based on the % of light eyes and hair in Southern Europe. Europe has the highest concentration of colored hair and eyes. Unless you have studies saying otherwise, there is no way the Dardic speaking areas have a higher % of colored eyes and hair than Southern Europe or likely even a similar %. Light eyes range from 25-30% in Southern Europe so there is no way Dardic speakers have more than 20% of the population with colored eyes.

Your opinion based on supposedly living there means very little. The fact is there is no where outside of Europe where the population has more than 20% colored hair or eyes. Also, hazel eyes are not colored (i.e. blue/green or mix) even if they are light. Light hair only refers to hair light brown or lighter. Brown hair is not light. Only light brown, red and blonde hair is considered light hair.

I'm sure a linguistics professor who has study endangered and rare languages for years knows far more than you about linguistics. Dardic languages are a sub-branch of Indo-Aryan languages. Kashmiri (the largest Dardic language by total speakers) is much closer to Hindi than an Iranic language like Farsi despite Farsi loanwords.
Edited by Sapporo, Feb 8 2013, 11:34 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Photographic Supplement · Next Topic »
Add Reply