Why do Pakistanis get lumped in with Indians (or even &quot;South Asians&quot;)?

OP

Original post by Ahem-

I've heard that Dubai isn't a great place for Indian/Pakistani immigrants apparently.

There's potential for some serious development if the Gulf countries ever decided to put serious money into welfare.

I doubt that's going to happen soon. So many Arabs are filthy racist to all Asians regardless of skin colour, especially Blacks and South Asians. They think that South Asians are ugly and refuse to treat them like humans. They don't even want to live with them and want to put them into a ghetto part of the city. They lack basic human rights.

Why are there so many South Asians in the Gulf when Africa and poor Middle Eastern countries are nearer?

Reply 161

troubadour.

19

Original post by justinetsr

Why are there so many South Asians in the Gulf when Africa and poor Middle Eastern countries are nearer?

Money.

Reply 162

kleen

I was taught that there's actually an anthropological difference between Pakistanis and Indians. The biological division is: Indo-Iranian, North Indian and South Indian.

Pakistanis (Punjabis) are more closely related to Afghanis while North Indians are more closely related to South Indians. Some North Indians can be found in Pakistan, but the majority of Pakistanis are Punjabi / Pakistani. All three ethnic groups have different face shapes and body characteristics, but Pakistanis are more aligned with Middle Easterners, while North Indians have historically mixed with South Indians. There are several skin colours in South India which range from fair to brown, while North India only has a fair skin colour.

The "British Asian" ethnic group should be something like:

•

Middle Eastern: Turk, Arab, ?Indo-Iranian?

•

Indian: North Indian, South Indian

•

East Asian: North-East Asian, South-East Asian

•

Austroloids

Random Info:

•

Some South Indians, and Sri Lankans, do not identify as "Desi". A lot of northern culture has no relevance to Sri Lankans.

•

Some South Indians, and most Sri Lankans, are far less white-skin obsessed than Indians and especially Pakistanis. A lot of South Indians don't care about North Indians.

•

A tanned North Indian does not equal a South Indian.

Reply 163

Ethereal21foreva

15

The neverending debate on whether Pakistanis and Bengalis are part of the South Asian culture...

Reply 164

OP

Original post by Hydeman

Money.

And Africans don't need money?

Reply 165

troubadour.

19

Original post by justinetsr

And Africans don't need money?

I misunderstood your question as asking why there are many South Asians in the Gulf and not in poorer countries, the obvious answer to which, of course, was money.

Revised answer: It probably has to do with cultural difference and the fact that there is a great emphasis in South Asian countries on pursuing careers which offer rich pickings in the Gulf, such as medicine, business, engineering, and so on. With regards to the culture -- being from an Asian family myself, it's been my experience that emigrating to wealthier countries is almost the greatest aspiration for a lot of people in that part of the world. This might not be the case in Africa, although I couldn't comment further because I don't have any evidence, even the poor anecdotal kind.

I should also mention that there are, in fact, quite a few African workers in the Gulf but these tend to be from countries not often thought of when people think of Africa, such as Egypt, Libya and Algeria, which are in the Arab world as well as in Africa.

One last thing about South Asians: I've read in some articles that physical labour from a lot of South Asian countries is specifically targeted by rapidly expanding countries like the UAE, primarily because, again, emigrating is something of an aspiration for a lot of people there and oftentimes they're quite gullible and sign contracts that they really shouldn't and end up in a dependency situation whereby their passport is confiscated on arrival and they're required to work very unsocial hours for pay that is quite shoddy by our standards. It is, however, considered worth it by those actually doing the work because of the difference in prices between their home and host countries -- when the host countries' currency is converted into the home countries currency and sent back to their families, it often has more buying power than would be the case if they were working similar hours in their home countries.

Just some speculation. :tongue:

Don't write me letters. :lol:

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 166

Silly_Monkey

8

Original post by Onde

The area now known as Pakistan was historically part of India for thousands of years in terms of shared culture and history. It was only in 1947 that Pakistan gained independence from what is defined as the modern nation state of India. The Pakistan state is basically defined as distinct from Indian because of its identity as an Islamic state...that was messily put together during the mass migrations during Partition.

It was never Indian. It was actually Persian for thousands of years before it turned into independent mini states and was only shoved into India during British colonial times

Reply 167

OP

Original post by Onde

By "Indian", it is typically meant the civilisation of the people of the Indus Valley: there has been a continuous collective cultural identity there going back more than 5000 years, from one of the earliest agricultural societies. This collective cultural identity includes many ancient religious practices and stories (think Hinduism and the Vedic texts).

These predate even the Persian Empire by many thousands of years. Perhaps you are referring to precursors to Persia here.

Most of what you said isn't true.

The Indus Valley wasn't historically Pakistani, in the same way Northern Ireland wasn't historically British. Pakistanis weren't involved in the history of Hinduism either. The peoples of the Indus Valley weren't ethnically Pakistani. I don't think anyone associates Pakistanis with Hinduism, or thinks Pakistanis were involved in the history of Hinduism.

I also bring forward the comparison with Turkey.

The first major event to lump Pakistanis with Indians was the Turkic Mughal Empire, but culturally, the only empire to link Indians with Pakistanis was the British Empire.

Original post by kleen

I was taught that there's actually an anthropological difference between Pakistanis and Indians. The biological division is: Indo-Iranian, North Indian and South Indian.Pakistanis (Punjabis) are more closely related to Afghanis while North Indians are more closely related to South Indians. Some North Indians can be found in Pakistan, but the majority of Pakistanis are Punjabi / Pakistani. All three ethnic groups have different face shapes and body characteristics, but Pakistanis are more aligned with Middle Easterners, while North Indians have historically mixed with South Indians. There are several skin colours in South India which range from fair to brown, while North India only has a fair skin colour.The "British Asian" ethnic group should be something like:

•

Middle Eastern: Turk, Arab, ?Indo-Iranian?

•

Indian: North Indian, South Indian

•

East Asian: North-East Asian, South-East Asian

•

Austroloids

Random Info:

•

Some South Indians, and Sri Lankans, do not identify as "Desi". A lot of northern culture has no relevance to Sri Lankans.

•

Some South Indians, and most Sri Lankans, are far less white-skin obsessed than Indians and especially Pakistanis. A lot of South Indians don't care about North Indians.

•

A tanned North Indian does not equal a South Indian.

Pakistanis were closer to Persians than to Indians.

(edited 8 years ago)

Exactly.

Original post by Onde

By "Indian", it is typically meant the civilisation of the people of the Indus Valley: there has been a continuous collective cultural identity there going back more than 5000 years, from one of the earliest agricultural societies. This collective cultural identity includes many ancient religious practices and stories (think Hinduism and the Vedic texts).

These predate even the Persian Empire by many thousands of years. Perhaps you are referring to precursors to Persia here.

Hinduism actually traces it's origins to Central Asia/Middle East. There is overwhelming evidence to support this. The Vedas actually talks ill of the people of the Indus Valley.

Pakistan is on the historic Indus Valley but it is Persian. You will find that if you trace iranian, Pakistani, afghan, and Indian Punjabi, heritage back - they all trace back to an early Ind- Aryan community. Apart from indian occupied kashmir and punjab no other indian state can claim the same.

India never really existed but was a collection of mini kingdoms.

Pakistan today differs from the rest of India. a Gujarati (Indian) vastly differs from a Pakistani Punjabi.

Pakistan is not India but is more or less Persian.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 170

daisychain_

13

Out of interest, is it all Pakistanis who think they're Middle Eastern, or just a few on TSR?

Reply 171

OP

Original post by Silly_Monkey

Hinduism actually traces it's origins to Central Asia/Middle East. There is overwhelming evidence to support this. The Vedas actually talks ill of the people of the Indus Valley.

Pakistan is on the historic Indus Valley but it is Persian. You will find that if you trace iranian, Pakistani, afghan, and Indian Punjabi, heritage back - they all trace back to an early Ind- Aryan community. Apart from indian occupied kashmir and punjab no other indian state can claim the same.

Stop trolling. All of what I quoted from your post false.

1) Paksitanis are racially different to Indian, even North Indians
2) Hinduism was invented in India, not Pakistan
3) Indus Valley wasn't created by people who were ethnically Pakistani, or who were related to people that live in Pakistan now. New evidence supports that they followed proto-HInduism.
4) "Indo-Aryans" did not create HInduism because Dravidians were involved in proto-Hinduism and the creation of modern-day Hinduism, while Pakistanis were not. North Indians and South Indians have historically mixed to be closely related to each other, while Pakistanis have not.

Reply 172

Silly_Monkey

8

Original post by justinetsr

Stop trolling. All of what I quoted from your post false.

1) Paksitanis are racially different to Indian, even North Indians
2) Hinduism was invented in India, not Pakistan
3) Indus Valley wasn't created by people who were ethnically Pakistani, or who were related to people that live in Pakistan now. New evidence supports that they followed proto-HInduism.
4) "Indo-Aryans" did not create HInduism because Dravidians were involved in proto-Hinduism and the creation of modern-day Hinduism, while Pakistanis were not. North Indians and South Indians have historically mixed to be closely related to each other, while Pakistanis have not.

I never said Hinduism was invented in Pakistan. Rather there is evidence to suggest that Hinduism origins could be found in Central Asia/Middle East. You need to read your Vedas -many of the Demi gods are actually found in the abrahamic faiths and referred to as prophets or messengers. In fact if you actually look into ancient Vedic Hinduism, it is many ways practically the same made as madeanism. Hinduism is not indigenous to India.

Pakistanis are racially different from Indians even North Indians - we are completely different.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 173

Original post by halal kebab5

you probably have never been to pakistan, stop basing your assumption of pakistanis on the mirpuris u see in the UK

Why thank you...

Most Pakistanis in the UK are Mirpuris, so other Pakistanis use "Oh they're just Mirpuri" as if it actually means something...

It's hardly different to someone saying "Oh so and so did that crime because they're black"

Reply 174

Original post by TheGuyReturns

They don't accept their ancestry because you're just outright wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Pakistan
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Pakistan_ethnic_map.svg/2050px-Pakistan_ethnic_map.svg.png

As I've said in a previous post

"Because people from the well off areas of Pakistan (areas from which most Pakistanis emigrate from) (Punjab, Sindh) are definitely a lot closer ethnically to Indians, than Afghans/Iranians (who westerners like op lump with "Arabs" )"

Pakistan is very diverse.

This. The whole of South Asia is VERY diverse. I can definitely tell the difference between most Indians and Pakistanis. It gets a bit harder when the Indians are say from the Punjab, or just...northern India.. That's when the lines get a bit blurred

Reply 175

Ravenous

17

Original post by The_Internet

Most Pakistanis in the UK are Mirpuris,

That's an over exaggeration, it's more like 30-40%

Reply 176

Original post by Ravenous

That's an over exaggeration, it's more like 30-40%

Not according to the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17156238

"By a quirk of history, the majority of the UK's Pakistanis come from this one small town"

Reply 177

Ravenous

17

Original post by The_Internet

Not according to the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17156238

"By a quirk of history, the majority of the UK's Pakistanis come from this one small town"

I think it's a bit less than half:

san-pips.com/download.php?f=134.pdf
British Pakistanis mainly hailfrom three parts of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir: Mirpur, which has produced more than 42 percent oftheir over one million population in Britain,

Btw most of them don't actually come from the town Mirpur, but the region. So he got that bit wrong.

Reply 178