Usain Bolt’s favorite team: Pakistan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/7877158.stm

Pakistani breaks indoor-rowing world record

Source: www.dawn.com

Mohammad Zubair in action at a gymnasium in Islamabad.—Dawn

ISLAMABAD: Mohammad Zubair broke the world record of individual longest continual rowing in Pakistan when he rowed 10 hours straight at a private fitness club on Saturday.

Under the supervision of both international and national rowing umpires from Pakistan Rowing Federation, the 31-year-old Mohammad Zubair broke the previous record of 7 hours 11 minutes and 22 seconds held by an Australian on the Concept II indoor rowing machine.

He stopped short of completing 100 kilometers for which he started again to finish the remaining 1,200 meters in roughly six minutes.

The record in this age group and weight category was of Shane Usher, Melbourne, Australia.

All necessary conditions had been met for continuous rowing and to break the record in single distance or timed pieces withoutintervals and starting from a nonmoving flywheel with the machine placed on a level surface.

Umpires occasionally checked the performance meter attached to the machine to record distances.

By the time Mohammad Zubair broke the record he had rowed 72 kilometers. That was equal to 13 laps of the Rawal Lake or rowing from Islamabad to as far as Mansehra.

Pakistans only International Rowing Umpire, and Executive Member of the Pakistan Rowing Federation, Imtiaz Ahmad Khan said indoor rowing was today a recognized sport around the world.

`The game requires athletes to row two kilometers. The athlete who rows the fasts wins the race. Pakistans Maqbool Ahmad who has participated in Asian and World Championships in indoor machine rowing holds the record of fastest covering of 2 kilometers in 6 minutes and 18seconds,` said Imtiaz Ahmad Khan a colour holder himself while his colleague Bronze Medalist and National Umpire, Pakistan Rowing Federation Shahid Nazir noted timings on his notepad.

The colour holder elaborated that unlike rowing on water, where records were broken every year because of different water and weather conditions around the world, this new world record set by Mohammad Zubair was for lifetime until somebody decided to hop on the machine and attempt to break it by rowing for more than 10 hours.

Mohammad Zubair, a Marketing Executive in Smarts, a private health and fitness gym in Islamabad, was the first Pakistani to take on such a challenge.

Mohammad Zubair started rowing at 10 am on Saturday morning and continued till 9 pm in the night setting a new world record of 10 hours.

Heroic Pakistani Girl Passes Away – Rest in Peace little sister. – The nation mourns.

Aarifa had shown improvement over the past four days.

LAHORE: Aarifa Karim Randhawa, the worlds youngest Microsoft certified professional lost the battle for her life at 9:15 pm on Saturday night after suffering from heart failure, her paternal uncle, Major Ahsan Randhawa confirmed.

Speaking to the media later, Aarifa’s farther, Amjad Karim Randhawa urged the public to follow up on the dreams Aarifa harboured, including building a Digicon Valley, working for the destitute, among other projects.

He described his late daughter as a guiding light for all.

Karim’s funeral prayers will be offered at the Ayub stadium in Cantonment at 10 am on Sunday, January 15, 2011. Later, the body will be shifted to Faisalabad where another funeral prayer will be offered at D Ground in People’s Colony in Faisalabad at 2 pm. Major Randhawa added that Aarifa Karim will be buried in her ancestral village, which is close to Faisalabad.

On December 22, Aarifa was admitted to Lahore’s CMH hospital after suffering cardiac arrest. On December 29, doctors said there was no hope for her survival, and that her life support could be switched off ‘at any time’.

However, she had then miraculously responded to certain stimuli, as recently as January 13. Aarifa’s father, Amjad Karim Randhawa had said that she had shown the Plantar Reflex when her foot was stimulated. “Her toes curved slightly downward when her foot was tickled,” he said, adding that earlier she had exhibited the Corneal Reflex, whereby her eyes blinked a few times.

Doctors had said that her brain had shown activity over the past four days, making minor improvements.

When Aarifa, 16, was given the title of a Microsoft professional as a young child, she had visited the company’s headquarters in the US.  When she met Bill Gates himself, she had two questions: Why weren’t children allowed to work for Microsoft, and why such few women worked for the organisation.

Her love for technology, however, started long before she was recognised internationally. After discovering computers for the first time at the age of five, she pestered her father for a personal computer, and after that there was no looking back.

Aarifa’s father had earlier recalled the year in which his daughter passed the test which enabled her to be declared the youngest professional certified by Microsoft in the world. “When she passed the test at age nine, everyone thought the result was wrong,” he reminisced. She wanted to make software just like Bill Gates, he added. She would say that she wanted to work for children and poor people.

Proudly, he said she came from a ‘low-profile’ family, but she would always say she wanted to study all over the world and then come back to help the people in her village. Her dreams were never for herself alone.

Aarifa’s achievements go far beyond recognition from Microsoft alone. The 16-year-old, was a student of Lahore Grammar School’s Paragon campus, and had represented Pakistan in various international forums.  In 2005, the child prodigy received the Fatimah Jinnah Gold Medal from the government as well as the Salaam Pakistan Youth Award. In addition, she had received the president’s award for Pride of Performance, medals from IT professionals around the world, and also became a brand ambassador for PTCL in 2010.

Her talents were versatile. Besides excelling in the field of science and technology, Aarifa also flew a plane at the age of 10.

On attacking Iran

Neo-Conservative thought on attacking Iran:

In early October, U.S. officials accused Iranian operatives of planning to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States on American soil. Iran denied the charges, but the episode has already managed to increase tensions between Washington and Tehran. Although the Obama administration has not publicly threatened to retaliate with military force, the allegations have underscored the real and growing risk that the two sides could go to war sometime soon — particularly over Iran’s advancing nuclear program.

For several years now, starting long before this episode, American pundits and policymakers have been debating whether the United States should attack Iran and attempt to eliminate its nuclear facilities. Proponents of a strike have argued that the only thing worse than military action against Iran would be an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Critics, meanwhile, have warned that such a raid would likely fail and, even if it succeeded, would spark a full-fledged war and a global economic crisis. They have urged the United States to rely on nonmilitary options, such as diplomacy, sanctions, and covert operations, to prevent Iran from acquiring a bomb. Fearing the costs of a bombing campaign, most critics maintain that if these other tactics fail to impede Tehran’s progress, the United States should simply learn to live with a nuclear Iran.

But skeptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond. And their grim forecasts assume that the cure would be worse than the disease — that is, that the consequences of a U.S. assault on Iran would be as bad as or worse than those of Iran achieving its nuclear ambitions. But that is a faulty assumption. The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.

Counter by Liberal Thought

. The US enjoys roundly poor support in the Gulf and more importantly unreliable support among the Russian and Chinese interests on this matter. In this regard, we need only review both Chinese and Russian military statements that they would and have already begun to back Iran with respect to both military aid and support, as well as generous trade and technical assistance in industrial matters.

2. Mr. Kroenig makes a point to mention that the United States would presumably conduct some “precision bombing” (an oxymoron if ever there was one), and then de-escalate the situation.

This is a canard for a variety of reasons, so let’s walk through – just a few of the downsides of such infantile thinking.

The Iranian government in light of the Ossirak attacks, in the 1980′s specifically spread their nuclear development program across dozens if not hundreds of sites, most if not all of which would have to be destroyed in large measure. With campuses, facilities and materials spread across a nation the size of Alaska, many of which are in large well defended metropolitan areas, the falsehood of this statement is obvious.

Presuming for a moment a US/Israeli attack were launched, with the US then seeking a peace with “terms”, what incentive could possibly induce Iran to accept. Our two nations would formally be at war, and rest assured if we consider any action taken by Iranian intelligence / non-state actors, as problematic before-hand – imagine what an enraged / nationalistically motivated set of terrorists / special agents , with generous state funding would be enticed to do. It puts every nightmare terrorist scenario on the table in ways we can scarcely conceive.

The US and Israel and the western world at large have an embarrassment of riches from the perspective of a terrorist looking to inflict economic catastrophe.

To return to the overall argument of consequences however,

Let’s first remember, after all , this is not just a military engagement, oil and gas prices would immediately skyrocket, we enjoy 100 dollar a barrel gasoline, currently, (as preposterous as that will seem to older readers who remember fondly 30 dollar per barrel prices), where is the limit if the Straight of Hormuz becomes an open battlefield?

What happens to the planetary economy when the the ports of Juaymah like in ruins and 50 percent of the planetary supply is taken offline for months or years?

How many years or perhaps even decades before our economy would recover from 200 or 300 dollar per barrel gasoline? Are US industries or consumers sufficiently able to absorb or support 10-12 dollar gasoline prices, for a very long period of time?

How does this impact things like crop yields where a minor escalation of 20 dollars per barrel caused food riots in China, India and of course throughout the Muslim world, as food prices rose in league with energy used to produce that food?

What happens to the US consumer economy when suddenly our distribution, food production and energy costs double or triple.

Beyond the tacit military support of Iran, what geo-strategic impact would such a manifestly reckless attack have when a China or Russia, India or even Europe evaluate the prospect of cost-induced mass food and fuel shortages, how will these nations respond to the prospect of starvation due to such a significant disruption to the food production network?

Might they feel compelled to intervene to restrain our adventurism in some way?

The ramifications of even a temporary embargo or sanction against the United States by either these nations or some coordinated action to restrain our efforts, by the Arab League would shut down the US economy and make the 1970′s embargo’s look like a picnic by comparison.

Is the US , in any serious way able to say that the Pakistani government or the more sympathetic elements of the ISI have not already executed or conducted some sort of Pan-Muslim nuclear exchange akin to the US/UK Lend-Lease program of the 1930′s and 40′s ,perhaps a “gift” the Iranian regime a few nuclear warheads to tide them over until their domestic production is adequate?

Which opens a whole series of questions as to whether Iran already HAS a nuclear defense capacity?

What if have and they use it?

Destroying Saudi oil delivery capacity – or launching such a device as an EMP over the western Levant, or crippling US forces over the Arabian penninsula, returning Israel and Turkey and Iraq or the north-western 1/3 of Saudi Arabia to the 1850′s in rapid fashion.

Not a single person might die in the initial detonation , but rest assured , nations would fall as a result.

There are a whole litany of similar questions, one can ask when you get started along these lines.

So to indulge the neoconservative view that we can have yet again a “clean” war, with no impact is exactly the same pack of fabrications with a new label, only this time the nation involved has a citizenry numbered at nearly 90 MILLION or more than 10 times the size of Israel and nearly 1/3 the population of the US.

Moreover, what exactly is the downside of an Iran with say 1-5 nuclear weapons of a Hiroshima style yield; unfortunately for neoconservatives, the answer is – not very much.

Iran , like every other major nation in the region, from Turkey to Saudi Arabia (which has allegedly sponsored the majority of the Pakistani nuclear program), to Pakistan itself, and a whole host of other nations throughout Southeast Asia have either developed or have the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon.

Israel, far from the defenseless lamb in the wild, thanks to unfailing US support , has a complete nuclear deterrence.

- 40 years of technological / deployment lead on these other nuclear states.

- The most technologically advanced military in the region.

- Israel itself is conservatively estimated to have upwards of 70 Hiroshima style weapons, with an unknown number capable of being launched in minuteman fashion.

- At least 3 submarines specifically designed and deployed as capable of launching “dead-hand” nuclear response – should Israel in fact be “wiped off the map”, the aggressor or aggressors would almost certainly suffer a nuclear response, even in the face of tactical victory on the ground.

- VAST US military support in terms of advanced missile interception technology , from x-ray laser anti-missile systems deemed largely reliable and operational across Israel, to anti-missile/missile systems.

This is to say nothing of an understood military support of the United States itself , should Israel actually come under attack.

So the problem faced by the Israel body politic is really the major problem at hand, shifting from a situation where there is no credible nuclear threat to a situation where nuclear weapons are actively deployed in their sphere of influence.

This places a series of rhetorically and ideologically unpalatable choices before the more conservative/hard-line members of the Israeli military and political establishment, but it does not represent a significant existential threat. Even members of the Israeli government from the head of Mossad itself to various members of the Knesset have publicly recognized this.

The United States – for it’s part has – in stark contrast to the argument has one simple interest – economic and military, a nuclear armed Iran does not necessarily adversely affect any of our interests in the immediate term, nor does it prospectively adversely affect our interests in the future.

More abhorrent to the neoconservative worldview is the distinct observation that the United States has a variety of economic interests which would benefit from improved relations with the United States, I’m sure Coca-Cola, Corning Glass, Exxon, IBM, Hallburton (which already does some limited business with Iran), Microsoft, Apple or any number of other firms would enjoy the opportunity to engage a marketplace of nearly 100 MILLION new consumers.

This is entirely contrary to the argument made by Mr. Kroenig that an attack against Iran is the “least bad” option, the egregious failure of this author to even cursorily mention these or any other observations to the contrary really shows the utter failure of this argument bear any scrutiny or be of any value.

It is only so in the absence of considering ANY of the plausible military or economic consequences, that such argumentation exists, and I would furthermore implore the editors of Foreign Affairs to give more considered insight to these preposterous neoconservative arguments.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this important matter.

Sincerely ,

Mark Thomson
Princeton, NJ

Sharmila bose on Bangladesh

She demolishes the national consensus behind ‘liberation’ as expressed in the 1970 elections: “the voter turnout in East Pakistan is given as only 56 per cent, lower than in the provinces of Punjab; (66 per cent) and Sindh; (58 per cent) in West Pakistan. It would appear that 44 per cent of the East Pakistani electorate was too disinterested in the issues of the election to vote, or else had some disincentive to go out to vote” (p.171).

The world accepted the figure of 90,000 Pakistani troops taken as PoW by India. Bose discovers that Pakistan had only 45,000 troops, paramilitary and police in East Pakistan. The PoWs could not have been more than half of the total.

The other item in the national narrative is the “three million” killed by the Pakistan Army. “According to the Bangladeshi authorities, the Pakistan Army was responsible for killing three million Bengalis and raping 200,000 East Pakistani women” (p.177). She thinks the war dead were no more than 26,000 and extracts the figure from the situation reports of the Pakistan Army. Indian officers gave her the figures of no more than “300,000 to 500,000” (p.178).

She adds some ironies too: “Many Hindus were left unharmed by the Pakistan Army during 1971. As the witness accounts show, many Hindu refugees were leaving their villages and fleeing to India not because of any action of the army but because they could no longer bear the persecution by their Bengali Muslim neighbours” (p.182).

She ends by writing: “When the Pakistan Army came for Sheikh Mujib on the night of 25-26 March 1971, he was apprehensive; the soldiers arrested and imprisoned him, accusing him of treason. When soldiers of the Bangladesh Army came for Sheikh Mujib on 15 August 1975, he went to meet them as they were his own people; they killed him and all his extended family present, including his wife, two daughters-in-law and three sons, the youngest a child of ten” (p.183).

India aiding Terrorists: TTP

Taliban sources said Rehman had ordered his fighters to kill Mehsud because of his increasing closeness with al Qaeda and its Arab contingent.

Mehsud’s former deputy has also alleged the TTP chief received money from Pakistan’s arch-rival, India, to kill a former Pakistan spy agency official acting as a mediator between the Pakistani Taliban, Afghan insurgents and the Pakistani government.

Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/315970/top-pakistan-taliban-commanders-at-each-others-throats/

Iraq, Indian, Soviet state-sponsored terrorism in Baluchistan

This conflict is widely seen as a revival of Shia-Sunni conflict when, in fact, Iraq under its Sunni President Saddam Hussain deliberately began to sent Iraqi made weapons through Pakistan’s warm water ports.[58] Though, with Pakistan Navy had effectively applied a naval blockade, any attempts made by Saddam was thwarted.[59] The Saddam Hussain’s government provided support for Baluchi separatists in Pakistan, hoping that their conflict would spread into rival Iran.[58] In 1973, Iraq provided the Baluchis with conventional arms, and it opened an office for the Baluchistan Liberation Front (BLF) in Baghdad. This operation was supposed to be covert, but in 1973, the operation was exposed by M.I. when senior separatist leader Akbar Bugti defected to Bhutto, revealing series of arms stored in Iraqi Embassy.[58] On the midnight of 9 February 1973, Bhutto launched an operation to seized control of Iraqi Embassy, and preparation for siege was hastily prepared. This operation was highly risky and any wrong step during this operation would attempt to start a international diplomatic incident between two countries. The operation was carefully analyzed and at 0:00hrs (12:00am), the SSG Division, accompanied by Army Rangers stormed the Embassy, and the Military Police arrested the Iraqi Ambassador, his military attache, and his diplomatic staff.[58] Following this incident, authorities discovered 300 Soviet submachine guns with 50,000 rounds of ammunitions and large amount of money that was to be distributed amongst Baluchi separatist groups.[58] Bhutto was angered and frustrated, without demanding any explanations, Bhutto ordered the Military Police to immediately deport the Iraqi Ambassador and his staff were expelled from Pakistan as personae non gratae, with any given available flight.[58]
The Government announced the Iraqi plan to further dismembered the country, and Bhutto’s successful diplomatic war against Iraq had Saddam internationally isolated and was condemned.[58] It was this incident that forced Pakistan to support Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in 1980s, and further in 2003, Pakistan remained in support for the United States for commencing its invasion against Saddam Hussain. [58]

Pakistani Shehzade

IMRAN KHAN and PTI GAINING MOMENTUM

Javed Hashmi, one of the stalwarts of Multani politics and the most visible Seraiki member of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, was deciding late on Friday night whether to jump ship and join the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf bandwagon, sources told The Express Tribune.

Even though he has recently been sidelined by the PML-N leadership, Hashmi’s possible departure would come as a major blow to the PML-N, which has been struggling in South Punjab and would need Hashmi’s support in the region. Hashmi’s defection would also likely cost the party 12 members of the National Assembly and at least eight members of the Punjab Assembly, claimed sources close to the PTI

SHAH QURESHI JOINS LEAVES PPP FOR PTI

MARVI MEMON JOINS PTI

DR. AQ KHAN SUPPORTS PTI:  http://jang.com.pk/jang/may2011-daily/30-05-2011/col1.htm

SHEHZAD ROY (pop star)

JAWAD AHMED (pop star)

Ali Azmat (Sufi Rock Star)

Strings (Popular Band)

Mian Yousuf Salahuddin -(Grandson of Allama Iqbal)

Abrar-ul-Haq (Pop Star – Philanthropist)

Maria B (TV Personality)
wami Nation Party MNA Muhammad Khan Hoti joined PTI after resigning from the national assembly membership.

MALEEHA LODHI (Professor at Harvard University) – brilliant diplomat joining !!!

MNA Jahangir Khan Tareen,

MNA Awais Leghari,

Senator Jamal Leghari,

ex-ministerGhulam Sarwar Khan,

Sikandar Hayat Bosan,

Ishaq Khan Khakwani,

Dr GG Jamal,

Col (r) Ghulam Sarwar Cheema,

Syed Nusrat Ali Shah,

Sadia Abbasi,

Sardar Umar Farooq,

Abid Hasan,

Ahmad Waqar

Mirza Hamid Hassan,

Hasnain Haider Khan Bosan,

Shaukat Hayat Bosan,

Muhammad Siddiq Khan,

Muhammad Shafique Khan,

Taimoor Masood Akbar,

Javed Lund,

Aleem Shah,

Syed Chan Shah Chaudhry Azeem,

Ch Javed Kausar,

Mahmood Qadir Leghari Rao Shabbir Billo Khan,

Makhdoom Alam Bardar Hashmi,

Engineer Shahbaz Gul Shinwari.

The Differences Between Pakistanis and Indians (http://wp.me/pOeMY-L3)

http://wp.me/pOeMY-L3

Abstract: Generally speaking, Pakistanis and Indians, Pakistan and India are different in: genetics, overall genetic composition, religion, culture, rituals, linguistics, diet, ethnicity, governance, pre-history, civilization, race, complexion, geography, topography, philosophy, script, cuisine, music, entertainment, perception, soico-politics and economies.

CIVILIZATION
Since rivers can sustain clusters of large populations, early man formed the first civilizations around rivers.  Examples include: Huang He (Yangtze River), Mesapotamia (Euphrates/Tigris) , Egypt (River Nile) and IVC (Indus River).  Modern Pakistanis take immense pride in the fact they are descendants of the civilization that formed around the River Indus.  The Indus river flows entirely through modern-day Pakistan, Kashmir and Tibet.  The Indus Valley Civilization was located primarily (90%) in modern day Pakistan.

PEOPLE OF THE INDUS RIVER - PAKISTAN (Baluchistan, Punjab, KP, Kashmir, Sindh). The Indus basically mimics the shape of modern day Pakistan.

Indus City of Moenjo-Daro proudly displayed on Pakistani Currency.

Ruins of IVC in modern day Pakistan

On the other hand, the Gangetic civilization of India is formed around the Ganges river which flows away from the Indus and terminates in the Bengal delta.  It is entirely in India and Bengal.  Note the divergent paths below of the two rivers:

Indus - A river in Pakistan

Gangetic Civilization in Modern "India"

PRE-HISTORY

India and Pakistan have been under ‘unified’ rule for only 500 out of 10,000 years and that too under mostly Islamic or Buddhist rule.  Whether as Muslim, Vedic, Buddhist or Hindu, Pakistan or the people of Indus were rarely part of “Indian” civilization.Mehrgarh one of the most important Neolithic (7000 BCE to c. 2500 BCE) sites in archaeology, lies on the “Kachi plain” of Balochistan, Pakistan.  Baluchistan has hardly been part of “India”.  This civilization is one of the earliest sites with evidence of farming (wheat and barley) and herding (cattle, sheep and goats) in South Asia.

RACE

While the racial features of each ethnic group are not uniform, Pashtuns are the most Caucasoid, followed by Kashmiris, Baluchis, north Punjabis, and then Sindhis, Seraikis, Urdu-speakers.  The Australoid-Negroid and Mongoloid racial elements are quite infused within the dominant Caucasoid genes among Pakistanis, however there are some that have retained their distinct racial characteristics.  The Australoid-Dravidoid racial element dominates among the lower caste Indians, South Indians, Eastern and Central Indians.  The Caucasoid racial element dominates in Northwest Indians and higher caste Indians. The Mongoloid racial element dominates in Northeast Indians and border regions with China.

Indian are majority Proto-Australoids, Australoid-Negroid, Dravidians

35 Million Pakistanis are Pushtun - Biggest Pushtun Population in the World. They are an integral part of the Pakistani establishment. As you can see this ordinary man in Karachi streets looks nothing like the Indians above.

India hosts the world’s largest population of Proto-Australoids.  They are people with wavy hair lavishly distributed all over their brown bodies, long headed with low foreheads and prominent eye ridges, noses with low and broad roots, thick jaws, large palates and teeth and small chins. The Austrics of India represent a race of medium height, dark complexion with long heads and rather flat noses but otherwise of regular features. Miscegenation with the earlier Negroids may be the reason for the dark or black pigmentation of the skin and flat noses.  The Austrics laid the foundation of Indian civilization. They cultivated rice and vegetables and made sugar from sugarcane. Now these people are found mostly in India, Papua New Guinea and Australia.  Their languages have survived in the Central and Eastern India.

ETHNICITY
A significant portion of Pakistani population is Afghan/Pashtun and Irani/Baluchistanis.  The Pashtun are an integral part of Pakistan’s establishment. It can be said there are two Pashtun countries in the world, Afghanistan and Pakistan. This ethnic group has contributed many of Pakistan’s presidents & prime ministers (Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zafarullah Khan, Liaqat Ali Khan, Feroz Khan). There are more Pashtuns in Pakistan than Afghanistan and more in Karachi than Kabul.  This group has also inflicted defeat after defeat on what is now republic of India and can never be considered “Indian”.  People of Iranian ancestry have that have taken leadership positions include Benazir Bhutto and the current prime minister Gilani who visited his ancestral homes on a trip to Iran.  Arabs settled along the Indus and Omanis settled in the enclave of Gwadar.  Still other Pakistanis are descendants of Mongols, Mughals and Turks in addition to Persians, Sakas, Parthians, Hephthalites and Greeks.

Pakistani Ethnicities; Another pull towards the Oxus and Central Asia

LINGUISTICS

Pakistanis speaks exclusively Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan languages whereas much of India speaks Proto-Australoid languages.  Balgir (2004) designates the following Indian tribes as Proto-Australoid racial group: Bhumiz, Gadaba, Juang, Kharia, Koda, Kolha, Mahali, Mirdha, Munda, Santal, Saora tribes.  Australoid racial stock is represented by: Gond, Kondh, Kissan, Oraon, Paraja, Pentia, Halva.  These Australoid tribes don’t exist in Pakistan proper.  Urdu uses the persian-based script. Hindi uses Devangari script.

Kashyap (2006) designates 23 out of 54 Indian populations studied as Australoid, of which 1 speaks an Indo-European language (Dhangar of Maharashtra), 4 speak Austro-Asiatic languages (Kurmi of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar Kurmi of Bihar, and Juangand Saora of Orissa), 18 speak Dravidian languages.  7 populations were designated as Mongoloid, and the remaining 24 as Caucasoid.

About 99% of languages spoken in Pakistan are either Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian (sub-branches 75% Indo-Aryan 24% Iranian).  All languages of Pakistan are written in the Persio-Arabic script, with significant vocabulary derived from Punjabi, Seraiki, Sindhi, Pashto, Urdu, Balochi, Kashmiri which are the languages of Pakistan.

Indian languages, 69% of languages spoken in India are Indo-Aryan, 26% are Dravidian, and 5% are Sino-Tibetan and Austro-Asiatic, All unrelated/distinct family of languages.  Most languages in India are written in Brahmi- derived scripts such as Devangari, Gurmukhi, Hindi, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Assamese, Punjabi, Naga, and many others are the mother-tongue languages spoken in each of India’s states.

Pakistanis mainly speak Indo-Iranic languages. Indo-Iranic languages include Balochi, Sindhi, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Undri (Urdu) and Pashto are Indo-Iranic languages as are all the other languages of Pakistan which descend from a common proto-Indo-Iranic language around the second millennia BC. Only Brahui (Dravidian), Baltistani (Sino-Tibetian), and Burusho (language isolate) are non-Indo-Iranic,  however it’s speakers are not that geneticly distinct form the rest of Pakistanis.  Punjabi is the majority language of Pakistan.  Punjabi is 2% of India.  In the case of Urdu/Hindi, while Hindi is the mother- tongue of a majority in India, Urdu is the mother-tongue of a minority 8% Pakistanis.

Hindi - (Indian)

Urdu (Pakistan)

GENETICS

The Pakistani population consists of mostly Indo-Aryans.  70% of Pakistanis are Caucasoid by race, 20% Australoid- Negroid, and 10% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. 50% of Indians are Australoid-Negroid by race, 35% Caucasoid, and 15% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition.

Pakistanis carry common R1A genetic markers clearly indicating obvious common ancestry. Mostly the north western Iranic speakers and the Dardic speakers are said to be closely related with a higher frequency of R1A genetic markers as opposed to the Indo-Aryan speaking population with slightly lower R1A frequencies (mainly Punjabis and Sindhis), however they are still all connected.   Even the non-Indo-European speaking populations – mainly the Brahuis, Hunzas (also called Burushos) and Baltistanis- do not stand much out genetically.  See genetic difference below between Indians (Hindi, Marwari, Gujrati, Marathi, Kannada, Konkani) and Pakistanis (Balochi, Brahui,Makrani, Sindhi, Pathan, Kashmiri, Punjabi).  Genetically, Pakistanis are closer to Bedouin than they are to Marathis.  Click on the images below to see difference in genetics between Pakistanis and Indians:

Genetic Disposition of Central and South Asians. India in Green, Pakistani in Blue and Iran and Central Asia in Orange.

J variance in Iran, Pakistan, India, Turkey, and the Balkans Quintana-Murci et al. reported that the STR variance in haplogroup J is .57 in Iran, .47 in Pakistan, .36 in India. For this particular variance, Pakistan is closer to Iran than India or rather in the middle.  On the same loci, the STR variance derived from the Balkan data of Bosch et al. is 0.55.

The Genetic Difference

At K=7, a Southwest Asian component emerges which is highest in Arabia and East Africa.  Another interesting aspect of its distribution is its presence in Pakistan but not India. Perhaps, in this case, it reflects historical contacts between the Islamic Near East and parts of South Asia.  Indians have a 1.8 NE/NW ratio. In Pakistan this is 6.5, in Uzbeks it is 2.9, and in the North Eurasian_Ra it is 14.2.

Australoid/Negroids in India, Australia and Papua New Guinea.

Genetic Map. Note Pakistani Category versus Indian Quadrant - Gujratis, Sri Lankans, Brahmins. Pakistan is close to Central Asia at grid point 0,0.

Notice Pakistani ethnic groups versus Indian ethnic groups

RELIGION

It is important to note that Sub-continent Muslims and Sub-Continent Hindus are two distinct civilizations.  Islam reached Pakistan, Bengal & India within decades of its inception in the 7th century through arab traders. In 1937 at the 19th session of the Hindu Mahasabha held at Ahmedabad, Veer Savarkar in his presidential address asserted: “India cannot be assumed today to be Unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main — the Hindus and the Muslims.” Another Hindu, Bhai Parmanand points out in his pamphlet called “The Hindu National Movement”:—“In history the Hindus revere the memory of Prithvi Raj, Partap, Shivaji and, Beragi Bir, who fought for the honour and freedom of this land (against the Muslims), while the Mahomedans look upon the invaders of India, like Muhammad Bin Qasim and rulers like Aurangzeb as their national heroes”

In the religious field, the Hindus draw their inspiration from the Ramayan, the Mahabharat, and the Geeta. The Musalmans, on the other hand, derive their inspiration from the Quran and the Hadith. Thus, the things that divide are far more vital than the things which unite.  In depending upon certain common features of Hindu and Mahomedan social life, in relying upon common language, common race and common country, the Indian is mistaking what is accidental and superficial for what is essential and fundamental Muslims and Hindus have different diet.   Hindus revere the cow, Muslims butcher them for their meat and hide.  In Hinduism, society is highly stratified.  In Islam, “untouchables” converts are welcomed as equal brothers.  In much of India, Muslims live in what are called “Muslim areas” a euphemism for ghettos.   As noted by Bhai Parmanand, Heroes of Muslims are scoundrels s to Hindus (Augranzeb, Babur, Afzal Khan, Ghazni, Ghauri).  Heroes of Hindus are scoundrels to Muslims (Shivaji, Sambajhi).  The two differ in perceptions.  Hindus see Muslims as disloyal progeny of half-breeds, forced-converts, former untouchables or foreign invaders.  Muslims see themselves as Central Asians or Inspired Converts and former masters of western, central & southern asia.  Although Pakistanis are proud of ancient civilizations such as the Indus and their South Asian heritage, Pakistanis the people consider Pakistan the state as a natural extension of the Southwest Asian Muslim experience of the last 1000 years.  Muslims in South Asia have many cultural similarities and by extension dissimilarities from Hindus.  Many Indian Muslims though certainly not all may have appearances of Central Asians & Arabs especially in urban locations.

97% of PAKISTAN is ISLAMIC.

81% of INDIA or 972 million are HINDU.

GEOGRAPHY

The republic of India is in its entirety located in South Asia.  Pakistani is situated at a pivotal geo-strategic, cross-civilizational location. It sits at the intersection of multiple civilizations. Pakistan is considered to be part of the Central Asia by UN. The country is considered to be part of the greater middle east. It is also part of South Asia.   Pakistan is considered to be part of Central Asia both geographically and culturally. India is not.  Central Asia consists of the following nations: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and the following “territories”: Afghanistan, China, Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, Russia.  Pakistan has several central asian “cultural capitals” like Peshawar. India does not.  Pakistan is similar to Turkey in Eurasia.  It is part of multiple strategic locations to the Central Asian STAN countries. India is not.  Wakhan Corridor: In Afghanistan, with Tajikistan to the north, Pakistan to the south and China to the east, Khyber Pass: Between Afghanistan and the Pakistan Khunjerab Pass: Between Pakistan and China.

United Nations Designation of Middle & Greater Middle East

Pakistan is part of the “Greater Middle East”. India is not.  In the UN map, Dark green in this map is “Middle East”.  The G8 considers Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Algeria, Morrocco, Tunisia to be part of the “Greater Middle East”.  Armenia, Azerbaijan and the former soviet republics are considered “the greater middle east” sometimes.

TOPOGRAPHY
Topography of the Indus and the Indian region separate the two countries.  Pakistan occupies the western region of the subcontinent and is based around the Indus Valley. It is separated from India proper by a historically impassable desert and by swamps in the south, leaving only northern Punjab, in the central part of the country, as a point of contact.  A small portion of Punjab was partitioned to India.  Pakistan is the major modern-day remnant of Muslim rule over medieval India.  On the other hand, Historic Pakistan has been easily accessible to Afghanistan & Iran.  Everyday thousands of Pakistanis and Afghans cross the border to visit their relatives.

Inhospitable Terrain between Historic Regions. Mangroves in the south, Desert in the middle, Karokaram in the north. Only Northern Punjab is easily accessible with the rest of partitioned Punjab. The northwestern provinces of british india have in common the Indus River.

FOREIGN RELATIONS
As indenpendent nations, Pakistan and India have gone separately in their foreign relations.

In the Near, India attacked and invaded the Portugese Colony of Goa.  Conversely, Pakistan negotiated and purchased the Omani Colony of Gwadar.  Pakistan negotiated an agreement with China on border territories, Conversely, India attempted the provocative forward policy.  Pakistan is has an exemplary friendship with China and considers its friendship “higher than mountains deeper than oceans”.  Conversely, India has had a war with China and considers it to be her #1 enemy.  Pakistan supported and fought alongside of the Afghans against the Soviets.  India was a staunch ally of the Soviets.  Pakistan has not been war with any neighbor except India.  India has been at war or conflict with Pakistan, China, Sri Lanka and has poor relations with Nepal, Bangladesh.

In the near-far, Pakistan has brotherly relations with a majority of the Islamic World and is a founding member of OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries).  India does not enjoy the support of Muslim countries on the critical issue of Kashmir and is not allowed in the OIC even as a guest.

In the far, Pakistan has a history of friendship with USA.  India has always been in the Soviet/Russian camp.  Pakistan does not recognize Israel.  Israel is an important strategic partner of India.

CULTURE
The region has formed a distinct cultural unit within the main cultural complex of South Asia, the Middle East and Central Asia from the earliest times, and is analogous to Turkey’s position in Eurasia.[1] There are differences in culture among the different ethnic groups in matters such as dress, food, and religion, especially where pre-Islamic customs differ from Islamic practices. Their cultural origins also reveal influences from far afield, including Tibet, Nepal, India and eastern Afghanistan. All groups show varying degrees of influence from Persia, Turkestan and Hellenistic Greece. Pakistan was the first region of South Asia to receive the full impact of Islam and has developed a distinct Islamic identity, historically different from areas further west.

PHYSICAL FEATURES
A common international perception based on observance of physical features is that most Pakistanis are lighter skinned than most Indians.  Most Pakistanis resemble the looks of peoples inhabiting on Pakistan’s western borders and beyond i.e. Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Iran, Turkmenistan.  Many Pakistanis also resemble many Northwest Indians or higher caste Indians.  However, those are a minority in India.   Similarly, some Pakistanis resemble peoples of South India, lower caste Indians, Northeast India, etc. but they are a minority in Pakistan.  Majority of Pakistanis have fair skin complexion and majority of Indian have dark complexion.  Pakistanis have a Caucasoid skull type.

The differences between Pakistanis and Indians are not as prominent as say the Chinese and Nigerians.  Nor are the two people as similar as Americans and Canadians.   There are cases where a Punjabi from Pakistan may look like a small portion of Punjab partitioned to India just as NWFP and Baluchistan have similarity to Afghanistan and Iran respectively.  But a simple comparison of ordinary people in ordinary circumstances makes it blatantly obvious, that these are two different people.  The purpose of highlighting these differences is not to suggest that one is better than the other.  Rather, the purpose is only to respect our differences.  Pakistanis only want to lay claim to their heritage.   Indians have played the tune of a ‘common subcontinental heritage’ despite the fact that, barring the period of British colonialism there never was a ‘united India’ except in the minds and dreams of Hindu chauvinists. Indeed modern, India is a nation of 560 nations.

Click on thumbnails of ordinary people of Pakistan and India

***

SCHOOL CHILDREN

Indian

Pakistani - The difference in complexion and shades of hair is quite obvious.

***

FEMALE TROOPS

Indian Female Troops

Pakistani Female Pilots - Once again, complexion and features are visibly different.

***

NATIONAL FEMALE SKIERS

Indian

Pakistani - The difference could not be more pronounced in both complexion and feature and similarities to central Asians.

***

FEMALE FANS

Indian - Attractive ladies at a cricket match

Pakistani - Once again the female fans above have a classic South Indian, South Asian look whereas the Pakistani girls have features found all over in Pakistan.

***

NURSES

Indian

Pakistani nurses. Indian girls above look very much like each other, their counterparts in Pakistan look different.

***

WOMEN’S CRICKET TEAMS

Indian

Pakistani - Complexion and hair very much different

***

FANS ABROAD

Indian - Even abroad, the difference is quite clear and no jersey or flags are needed to identify the two peoples from each other.

Pakistani

***

FEMALE ATHLETES

Indian

***

U-19 TEAMS

Indian

Pakistanis - Very obvious difference

***

RETIRED CAPTAINS

Indian

Pakistani - the two gentlemen are highly accomplished but look like they are from two different parts of the world (in this case).

***

FANS

Indian Fans

Pakistani Fans

***

CAPTAINS

Indian Cricket Captain - A very typical Indian face. Compare features of Indian Astronaut below.

Pakistani Captain

***
UNIVERSITY GRADUATES 

Indian University Students

Pakistani University Students - These girls look very different from the graduates in India.

***
ASTRONAUTS

Indian Astronaut

Pakistani Astronaut

…

CERN SCIENTIST

Indian CERN Scientist

Pakistani CERN Scientist

Indian Women often have "frizzy" hair. This trait is rare in Pakistani women.

Indian Prime Minister

Pakistani Prime Minister - Was on the People's magazine of Most Beautiful People in the World.

Indian Students

Pakistani-American Students - A striking difference from Indian-Australian Students above. 1 may look similar to the Indian crowd above and 1 from Indian crowd may look like the majority in this picture. Overall the difference is quite obvious.

India – a superstate

The British conquered the various kingdoms in the Indian subcontinent one by one. Then, for ease of administering (ruling) the conquered territories, the British set up an administrative unit called India. A country or administrative unit called India (or by any other name), comprising of the current territories of India, never existed in all known history, before the British conquest and consolidation.

During the British colonial rule, people of the Indian subcontinent (including those areas now in Pakistan and Bangladesh) had a common purpose and agenda, namely, freedom from British colonial rule. Such a one-ness of purpose never before existed amongst the various peoples of the Indian subcontinent. It brought them together. Finally, in the middle of the 20th century (in the middle 1940s), the British decided to end their rule over the subcontinent. The one-ness of purpose that evolved during the freedom struggle against the British held, with the one exception that most of the Muslim-majority regions in the north became a separate nation called Pakistan at the insistence of the Muslims. Much of the rest of the subcontinent hodgepodge became a country called “India”.

Though the Indian constitution guarantees freedom of speech, political parties are not allowed to speak about freedom from Indian rule. Any party, group or individual who speak in support of freedom from India is not allowed to contest elections. This law was enacted by the Indian parliament (which is dominated by Hindi politicians) soon after electoral gains made in Tamil Nadu by a political party seeking independence from India. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam’s (DMK’s) dramatic success of winning 50 state legislature seats in the 1962 general election on the platform of independence from India scared Hindi politicians. The then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru quickly passed a law banning any party or individual voicing “secession from India” (that is, independence from India) from contesting in elections. Immediately, the DMK dropped its independence demand.

In India, political parties are the prime organizations that have the financial and human resources to raise such issues in public forums, and the 1962 law choked that voice of freedom. For example, until 1962, DMK leaders and cadres thundered from city to city, from town to town and from village to village all through Tamil Nadu the need for independence from Indian rule, and garnered considerable support. The 1962 Indian law put an end to that.

While the voices of freedom are thus choked off, the Indian government (controlled and dominated by Hindi politicians irrespective of which party is in power and who the Prime Minister is) uses all its power and resources to tell the people that India is an ancient country with an ancient culture and heritage. Schools books, movies, television, radio and every public forum is used to brainwash the public with this idea. Having thus constantly exposed to the government propaganda, and with the voices of freedom for Tamil Nadu choked off, the majority of Tamil public have bought the Indian government propaganda of “India is an ancient country! We are Indians!” The fact is, as we explained earlier, India was never a country before the British consolidated their conquests in the subcontinent into a single administrative unit called India.

Most Tamils know that they are culturally dominated by Hindians through television and radio. Virtually all Tamils resent and hate Hindi imposition. Some Tamils (not too many) know that Tamil Nadu is economically discriminated in favor of the Hindi heartland. Yet many Tamils do not yet think in terms of an independent Tamil Nadu because the constant Indian government propaganda has embedded in their minds that India is an ancient country; a totally false notion!

Had the fore-mentioned 1962 law been not passed and had the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) continued to use its vast resources and skills in its campaign for freedom for Tamilnadu from India, today most Tamils would be clamoring for an independent Tamil Nadu free from Indian rule.

Another point of confusion is the fact that what we know as the modern republic of “India” is really territory conquered by central Asians and consolidated by the British empire.  560 principalities, states, nations or cultures were consolidated.  The same can be said of Pakistan but it is united by religion (Islam), languages (Indo-Iranic), script (farsi), philosophy (TNT), civilization (Indus), cuisine (Mughalai).  Each of Pakistan’s ethnic groups meet each other on the banks of the Indus.   India is much more diverse amalgamation of states.  India, at a minimum, is a country made of the following countries:

Tamil Nadu - ”Untouchables” or Dalits of India reside here.  They are discriminated for their “lower caste”.

Assam – the Mongloid people of the “Indian” northeast frontier. 

Bengal. Kashmir. Oudh. Sikkim. Hyderabad.

CUISINE

Pakistani Food - heavy on meat - especially beef with NO Hinge

Indian Food in a traditional thali - heavy on veggies and hinge, presented in a unique, compartmentalized fashion

GEO-POLITICAL HISTORY

1000 AD

Pakistan territory is part of the Central Asian Ghaznavid Empire & Sindh

India territory is Bengal, Chola, Chalukya + many other kingdoms

1100

India further breaks into Gahadvala Empire