British-Pakistani Guy Explaining Differences Between Pakistanis and Indians (VIDEO)

[Thambi]

he's actually very well educated it seems. I thought it was gonna be a dumbass trying to act like he knows shit in the beginning, not gonna lie. but most of his points are quite valid. He's quite knowledgeable about the genetics portion as well. bro's half pashtun and half kashmiri so i can understand why he would feel quite alienated to the concept of being related to indians.

Indians and pakistanis are quite different overall and there are groups like pashtuns, balochis, northern pakistanis who dont have much to do with other indians outside of northwest/pahari region as y'all know already. but indus valley itself was originally a dravidian kingdom despite him ranting about 98% of indus originally being in pakistan. And he keeps on saying land east of indus was india historically. so aren't 70-75% of pakistanis living east of the indus? Punjabis, kashmiris, saraikis, sindhis.

Also interesting that he says pakistanis share genes/ancestry with only 2% of india. not true. Himachal pradesh, Haryana, Chandigarh, Delhi were all part of historical punjab. Kashmiris and Uttarakhand people are not that different either genetically speaking from these people as there are pahadi people in pakistan as well. So thats about 7-8% right there. Still not much though. So eastern pakistan is just an extension of northwest indian region with a separate identity now which I respect. I've seen this 2% argument a gazziliion number of times by pakistanis online so i'm just pointing out.

He's quite nationalistic as much as he tried to deny it lol, which is not a bad thing at all. India and pakistan have split up now and its good to have a prideful pakistani identity rather than link themselves with persians, afghans, arabs, indians or a mix of those, etc.

[jammydodgers123]

he's actually very well educated it seems. I thought it was gonna be a dumbass trying to act like he knows shit in the beginning, not gonna lie. but most of his points are quite valid. He's quite knowledgeable about the genetics portion as well. bro's half pashtun and half kashmiri so i can understand why he would feel quite alienated to the concept of being related to indians.

Indians and pakistanis are quite different overall and there are groups like pashtuns, balochis, northern pakistanis who dont have much to do with other indians outside of northwest/pahari region as y'all know already. but indus valley itself was originally a dravidian kingdom despite him ranting about 98% of indus originally being in pakistan. And he keeps on saying land east of indus was india historically. so aren't 70-75% of pakistanis living east of the indus? Punjabis, kashmiris, saraikis, sindhis.

Also interesting that he says pakistanis share genes/ancestry with only 2% of india. not true. Himachal pradesh, Haryana, Chandigarh, Delhi were all part of historical punjab. Kashmiris and Uttarakhand people are not that different either genetically speaking from these people as there are pahadi people in pakistan as well. So thats about 7-8% right there. Still not much though. So eastern pakistan is just an extension of northwest indian region with a separate identity now which I respect. I've seen this 2% argument a gazziliion number of times by pakistanis online so i'm just pointing out.

He's quite nationalistic as much as he tried to deny it lol, which is not a bad thing at all. India and pakistan have split up now and its good to have a prideful pakistani identity rather than link themselves with persians, afghans, arabs, indians or a mix of those, etc.

the stuff he was sayign was partially true, partially bollocks.

[Borealis]

he's actually very well educated it seems. I thought it was gonna be a dumbass trying to act like he knows shit in the beginning, not gonna lie. but most of his points are quite valid. He's quite knowledgeable about the genetics portion as well. bro's half pashtun and half kashmiri so i can understand why he would feel quite alienated to the concept of being related to indians.

Indians and pakistanis are quite different overall and there are groups like pashtuns, balochis, northern pakistanis who dont have much to do with other indians outside of northwest/pahari region as y'all know already. but indus valley itself was originally a dravidian kingdom despite him ranting about 98% of indus originally being in pakistan. And he keeps on saying land east of indus was india historically. so aren't 70-75% of pakistanis living east of the indus? Punjabis, kashmiris, saraikis, sindhis.

Also interesting that he says pakistanis share genes/ancestry with only 2% of india. not true. Himachal pradesh, Haryana, Chandigarh, Delhi were all part of historical punjab. Kashmiris and Uttarakhand people are not that different either genetically speaking from these people as there are pahadi people in pakistan as well. So thats about 7-8% right there. Still not much though. So eastern pakistan is just an extension of northwest indian region with a separate identity now which I respect. I've seen this 2% argument a gazziliion number of times by pakistanis online so i'm just pointing out.

He's quite nationalistic as much as he tried to deny it lol, which is not a bad thing at all. India and pakistan have split up now and its good to have a prideful pakistani identity rather than link themselves with persians, afghans, arabs, indians or a mix of those, etc.

IMO he is articulating what many Pakistanis want to but are unable to. They cannot really explain why they dont feel a connection to Indians even though there is some validity to their sentiments. Some things he says are exaggerations like Pashtuns and Kashmiris having nothing do with Indians-they do genetically have a connection to some of them, however the cultural differences are definitely there especially with the former.

[Thambi]

IMO he is articulating what many Pakistanis want to but are unable to. They cannot really explain why they dont feel a connection to Indians even though there is some validity to their sentiments. Some things he says are exaggerations like Pashtuns and Kashmiris having nothing do with Indians-they do genetically have a connection to some of them, however the cultural differences are definitely there especially with the former.

yes the kashmiri part was a huge exaggeration. Genetically they have decent influence from their western neighbors as well. culturally not so much imo, outside of pashtuns/balochis, but genetically without a doubt. Yes they just want their unique identity now so i can see why they want to separate themselves from pakistanis, but i don't agree with the connections to arabs. They have no relations to arabs but i guess this is common among many muslim communities.

[lameduck]

he's actually very well educated it seems. I thought it was gonna be a dumbass trying to act like he knows shit in the beginning, not gonna lie. but most of his points are quite valid. He's quite knowledgeable about the genetics portion as well. bro's half pashtun and half kashmiri so i can understand why he would feel quite alienated to the concept of being related to indians.

Indians and pakistanis are quite different overall and there are groups like pashtuns, balochis, northern pakistanis who dont have much to do with other indians outside of northwest/pahari region as y'all know already. but indus valley itself was originally a dravidian kingdom despite him ranting about 98% of indus originally being in pakistan. And he keeps on saying land east of indus was india historically. so aren't 70-75% of pakistanis living east of the indus? Punjabis, kashmiris, saraikis, sindhis.

Also interesting that he says pakistanis share genes/ancestry with only 2% of india. not true. Himachal pradesh, Haryana, Chandigarh, Delhi were all part of historical punjab. Kashmiris and Uttarakhand people are not that different either genetically speaking from these people as there are pahadi people in pakistan as well. So thats about 7-8% right there. Still not much though. So eastern pakistan is just an extension of northwest indian region with a separate identity now which I respect. I've seen this 2% argument a gazziliion number of times by pakistanis online so i'm just pointing out.

He's quite nationalistic as much as he tried to deny it lol, which is not a bad thing at all. India and pakistan have split up now and its good to have a prideful pakistani identity rather than link themselves with persians, afghans, arabs, indians or a mix of those, etc.

yeah that 2% argument is overdone , cast system makes South Asian very complex , you have low casts in Pakistan that can look very south shifted , so any argument on percentages will be flawed. Only thing we can safely say that many Pakistanis look different from many Indians.

[lameduck]

Well what the guy said is partially true and also partially complete bollocks. Some part of pakistan, specifically northern pakistan have more links towards mena/afghan/iranian regions such as the gilgits, KPK, pashtuns, nuristanis, burusho, but the other half of pakis are indians, like punjabis and kashmiris.

it is wrong to say that Punjabis and Kashmiris are Indians, every ethnicity has some of its core looks as well. Most Indians are not Punjabis and Kashmiris therefore many Punjabis and Kashmiris look different from many Indians

[jammydodgers123]

it is wrong to say that Punjabis and Kashmiris are Indians, every ethnicity has some of its core looks as well. Most Indians are not Punjabis and Kashmiris therefore many Punjabis and Kashmiris look different from many Indians

Good point. Only a small percentage is punjabu not to mention paki punjabs can be differentiated from indic punjabs most of the time.

[Babak]

Aren't Pakistanis and Afghans just Northern Indians who converted to Islam? I wonder what they would be today without backward Islamic culture.

Pakis, yea. Afghans, as in, pashtuns and tajiks? No