It’s rather amusing to see a high Muslim population growth rate attributed to the practice of polygyny. In Pakistan polygyny is an extremely rare practice owing to the prohibitive cost and the rising acceptance of divorce as a substitute to a second marriage. This is a trend that seems to be confirmed in South Asia as well:
“In India as a whole the incidence of polygynous marriage is highest among the persons returning their religion as tribal religion (15.25 per cent), next come the Buddhists (7.97 per cent) followed by Jains (6.72 per cent)”. What the data clearly reveals is that of all these religious groups, Muslims have the lowest incidence of polygynous marriages.

For more myth and facts with regards to the Muslim growth see the link:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/grhf/SAsia/repro3/mohanrao.html

Population growth is in itself not a bad thing as long it is surpassed by economic growth so that per capita income rises…

Muslims in Western Europe tend to have more children than the Europeans primarily because they have more of a stress on family values. European families are artificial structures where an extreme stress on personal independence inevitably leads to alienation between parent and child. Muslims are renowned for their close-knit families and I think it is a laudable feature that defines their civilization.
Europeans are also suffering from a generational postponement of births, whereby women of a marriageable and maternal age are postponing childbearing (Italy and Spain are very good examples of this).

Ultimately Europe’s demographic decline is attributable to destructive individualism and its incompatibility with a congenial family environment structures.

having read the tract on Gaul in the Bartleby Encyclopedia a few days ago I have to ask the question whether they were Cispadane or Transpadane Gauls;)

In my experience Arabs, especially Sunnis, are very ignorant as to what is “Sayyid ancestry” (strangely enough it seems that these numerous Sayyids, who number in the millions going on claim alone, seem to have packed their bags from Arabia and migrated to the Shi’ite regions of Persia & Pakistan).

Most of the Arabs are quite parochial when it comes to their kin in other nations. Whilst genealogies are meant to have great importance they are no longer relevant for the settled populations of the Fertile Crescent (the Palestinians wouldn’t have been agitating for their state otherwise and would have been able to assimilate elsewhere had they traditions been of a more nomadic nature).

Caliph Umar admonished the tribal Bedouin armies to remember their lines so as to not be like the soft natives who when asked of their origins “merely answered that they hailed from hereabout”. However a millenia of history overrides the dictates of a Caliph in this instance.

As for North Africa it was reinforced by 600,000-700,000 Arabic speaking immigrants from expulsions in the Iberian peninsula (granted many of whom were Mozarabs and Berbers in the first place) so the population there does have a degree of Arab Bedouin ancestry (the Maghreb frontier, or rather the Egyptian-Libyan border, is noted for the sharp shift in the Bedouin dialect.

Arabisation and Islamisation is the culmination of a very slow, but at times rapid, process that involved significant acculturation with the host society. It seems similar to puncuated evolution “where instead of a slow, continuous movement, evolution tends to be characterized by long periods of virtual standstill (“equilibrium”), “punctuated” by episodes of very fast development of new forms.” That is analogous to the growth of Islam in the heartland…

Zack

Bernard Lewis’s focus is exclusively on the Ottoman Empire to the exclusion of all else. Thus Lewis’s work is rather myopic since Islam is taken to the Ottomania and the rest of the Crescent is treated as peripherial.

For instance the medieval Safavid Empire (Turkicized Kurdish dynasty of Persia) only serves as a contrast and treated as a marginal rival to the Ottomans in Lewis’s texts. Virtually no mention is given to their immense cultural sway over the lands of Islam.

Persian culture, during the medieval times, was the defining heritage permeating the Islamic lands analogous to the European awe towards French high culture. Medieval Islam saw the dominating heights of Persian culture where the Mughal Emperors were educated in Persian literature (and encouraged in sponsoring the reproduction of it’s major works), the Ottoman Empire was renowned for his command of the Persian language and reputed as a Persian poet whilst the Turkish speaking Persian monarch felt acutely of his own shortcomings.

The Safavid monarchs were patrons to pioneering forms of calligraphy and during their reign the artistic triumphs (such as the reform and exportation of the nastaliq script) managed to bring about a Persian cultural hegemony.

One cannot claim to be a definitive source on Islamic history (as Lewis seems to do) without shedding light on every corner of the Islamic Crescent. Lewis virtually airbrushes the Mughal Empire from pages of history and that imperium is the direct heritage of four hundred million Sub-continental Muslims.

Pre-Islamic culture doesn’t figure independently in the Persian mind rather it wholly complements Islamic culture; the two blend to the degree as to be indistinguishable. Persians remember Rustam while paying tribute to Ali.

I believe the Iranian Intermezzo surely is the greatest Persian flowering (the Tajikis assimilated into the Persian language) since the universality of Islamic civilisation allowed the wholesale exportation of Persian values and cultural ideals. Zoroastrianism was restricted to the Iranian cultural world (Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia and westerly regions of pakistan) and was insular in the same manner as Hinduism (not to say Hindu culture didn’t spread but I believe it was primarily through “soft power”, which is why the peripheries of the Indic world converted at the onset of the Islam). Perso-Islamic culture was the dominant paradigm of Sub-continental, Anatolia and Central Asian culture whereas during the Achaemenian or even Sassanian empires this influence was not reached.

Islam united devastated swathes of ancient civilisation (Egypt, Mesoptamia, Indus Valley) and infused it with a cohesive Perso-Arab cultural framwork.

It’s brought about brilliant cultural synthesis for instance amongst the Punjabi tribes, claiming Arab and Central Asian genealogy is rooted in the historical practises of the pre-Islamic era and is a part of the regional dynamic & tribal power play.

Btw in Pakistan I think that atheism is more of the apathetic quality since the urban upper class are the only segment of the Pakistani population not as preoccupied with the Islamic world as the populace.

Perhaps we Pakistanis are alone in our fervent national passion for Islam. It isn’t fanaticism, far from it, but there is an exceptionally and highly acute awareness of being rooted in the Islamic world.

Naipaul for all of his criticism of Pakistan has a Pakistani wife (apparently she used to write a ditzy column in a national paper). His philosophy on Islamic imperialism is bunk and ignores the basis of the culture. Prayers are Arabic as hymns are in Sanskrit, since it is the ecclesiastical language!

What is the dispute over mangos and dates, are we not desi enough:) Pakistanis eats mangos when it is the season and personally it’s my favourite fruit (I can’t stand dates, too sweet). Dates do have certain popularity amongst Pakistanis in part due to the tradition to break the fast with dates.

The Arab Islam invasion was the final epoch in a long series of Semitic invasions from Saudi Arabia; only this time the nomadic culture prevailed.

A further corollary in the history of India and Persia can be established with the Turkic invasions, which date back to the pre-Islamic era (Rajputana and half the Hindu population of Haryana probably claim descent from the Scythian wave of 5th century AD) however Islam merely prevented assimilation into the dominant Hindu hierarchy and allowed them to retain their culture.

It is also very difficult to speak of Pakistani ancestry per se. There is an undeniably substantial Perso-Arab component to the Mohajir population (the bureaucratic class who emigrated from UP to Pakistan at Partition).

For instance my late grandmother was a Delhite however her father was an inhabitant to a Shi’ite village in UP (he was hounded out after converting away from Islam, indeed UP is the orthodox core of Hinduism and Islam) where the inhabitants claimed to be Sayyids (descendants of the Holy Prophet).

At any rate the lineage, for all intents and purposes, could have been fictitious but in one branch of my distant relatives (they, unlike our clan, returned to orthodox Shi’ism and remained “pure Sayyid”) one son can be taken for Persian, the other Arab, the older daughter Turkish and younger Indian.

Caste, creeds and colours have mixed for the Indian Muslim to the extent that speculation on ancestry is at best an uneducated guess.

At any rate the creation of Arab genealogy in Pakistan is a SouthCentral Asian tradition of attributing the tribe foreign lineages (the highly ethnocentric Pathan tribes claim to descend from Arabs but this marker is created to heighten their prestige in the inter clan rivalries).

Pakistani society does have a definite pre-Islamic Hindu cultural framework, which I do think we as a nation should give more recognition to, however the fact is that prior to 711 the population of present day Pakistan had an extremely strong Buddhist-Zoroastrian (Tantric Buddhism in West Punjab) component with a relatively weak Brahman hold.

Finally the Holy Quran has been translated to Persian (Shah Wallilah, 19th century) however translations are not common place because of the intricacies involved in transliterating Arabic sentences uttered in the 7th century (though paradoxically the Saudis are now enthusiastically translating the Holy Quran to English).

Islam like most other religions has acquired so many accretions and has such a contradictory nature that it’s very difficult to speak of it in such bold terms.

Tunisia, a country that is predominantly Muslim, has a below replacement fertility rate.

Russia’s Muslim population is concentrated in the autonomous population and the Russian population decline may inevitably follow the “indigenization” and “Islamicization” of these Islamic lands east of the Ural and south of the Volga. However the core Russian heartland can never be threatened by demographic decline (Muscovite region). At any rate the Russians, despite their rather wild reputation, are a conservative lot and birth rates will return to former levels with the stabilisation of conditions.

My felicitations on this triumph. Of course it was not unexpected, you are after all a natural writer with an acute awareness of history and geopolitics.

Since my post is the 21st I can only echo the sentiments of previous posters and hope that in the future your unique perspective can be communicated to as wide an audience as possible.

Zack

London owes it’s cosmopolitanism in part to its immigrant population. Virtually all my friends are foreigners; Lebanese, Indians and Europeans. My Masters class only had 3 people from the United Kingdom, the rest were from abroad, and it was an excellent lesson at diversity. The investment bank I work at is overwhelming Brit-European but there are a growing number of Asians. I love London in that parochialism and bigotry is hardly present and one feels as though one is residing in a global city rooted in a deep heritage. Cuisine wise we’re second to none except for a few needed Taco Bells (there are no decent Mexican restaurants)

At any rate demographic trends in the case of the United Kingdom hold no particular relevance and there is an ethnic preponderance in urban regions and the South West. Rural England and suburbia are particularly strong demographically (Scotland is problematic since the Scots have a frighteningly low birth rate) since immigrants flock to the cities.

Finally 50million British people is quite a feat considering only a few centuries ago there were only 2million of them on these sceptred islands.

I detest bearish sentiments as to the course of global civilisation since I am reminded of the economists at my bank.

Fleeing Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait at the tender age of 5 has lent me a natural optimism and taught me to appreciate my residence in the thriving metropolises of London & Paris.

The appropriate context for European demographic decline should take into account the historic population of the continent. There was a twenty five-fold jump in the population of the British Isles over the past few centuries, which is simply phenomenal. Europe, along with India and China, has an astoundingly dense population.

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/007248179x/student_view0/chapter8/web_map_4.html

Europe’s advanced urbanisation and rapid dissolution of the nuclear family are responsible for the collapsing birth rate. From a historical perspective urban regions are not demographically sustainable, having required a continual influx of healthy young peasants to maintain the population (today’s influx are no different, merely of a darker hue).

If asked to draft policy on this matter I would encourage grass root programs targeted for the sustainability and growth of rural populations in Europe. The true embers of French and national cultures will be tenaciously preserved in the countryside and their future survival is critical.

Historically cities have been ethnically diverse and cosmopolitan whereas the outlying rural regions preserve the authenticity of their culture.

I believe that is the ideal, which should be strived for in a globalising and homogenising world. London can continue as the international capital of the world but at the same time English culture can survive and thrive in the green fields and forests of England.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse so here’s my take on the thing.

Immigration in Europe has been a historical phenomenon, since the 19th century France has been welcoming “hordes” of European immigrants (French demographic decline has spanned the last century and in the 1950s France had at least 4million immigrants).

The European Union implicitly accepts that free trade is dependent on open borders. Though they still have yet to grasp the concept of creative destruction or the culture of hire & fire yet but only when they do can they reassert any modicrum of influence on global events. However closure of the borders is tantamount to economic suicide.

I believe in the relevance and importance of nationalism yet that must be tempered by globalism and awareness of a wider community. A healthy approach to diversity will lead to a preservation of the local culture.

Take India, or rather more specifically Bombay, for that matter. The city is rooted in an Indian milieu, much as London has a deep Brit-English heritage, but it has a distinct international flavour to it that allows multi-culturalism to thrive. Global metropolises are defined by their culture hetrogeneity and the urban composite blends, which arise from them. Mass urbanisation, as we are experiencing today, is allowing members of the human race to live with one another when there had been no previous interaction.

Furthermore the defining characteristic of Western (Anglo-Saxon and to a certain extent Romance cultures) civilisation has been to create a framework independent of ethnic parochialism.

For instance America is fundamentally rooted in civic ideals and economic freedom.

As a student of Hernando de Soto’s economic principles I believe the success of the Western economic experiment derives mainly from the interaction of freedom, regulation and liquidity as opposed to the particular ethnos of the population. The 19th century congressional Homestead act, which released the potential of the American continent and was critical in developing the anarchic West, illustrates the need for property laws adapted to local circumstance. Generating liquidity in third world countries is the task of the new century and I very much doubt the importance of demographics (except of coures when it comes age structure of the population) in this quest.

America and Britain are meritocracies and is transcending ethnic origin. One may have to be Han to be authentically Chinese but a love of freedom is the prerequisites to being America. Truly a radical concept in a world riven with strife.

My extended family, since dispersing from Pakistan, has dug deep roots in the Anglo-American sphere. All my cousins, on both sides, are American citizens (my brothers and I, alone of our generation, retain Pakistani citizenship) and are inculculated in the values that made America great.

My grandmother, born in Delhi, was buried last month in Orlando and I think it is the genius of America that it was able to make her and her children cherish American values as their own.

America, and her parent Britain, is a light unto humanity in that the distinction of colour, creed and caste is shed. The values espoused are universal and the bedrock for future human interactions. We may have differences in cultural perspective and outlook but the American (and ultimately Anglo-Saxon) experience has finally taught human beings how to build on their commonalities to achieve the individual and greater good.

From the article:

“The company said more than 150,000 people took part in the on-line survey, which was now in its seventh year.”

Oriental families tend to be more cohesive, regardless of endogamy. For instance Indians do not practise cousin marriages but their culture is anchored in the extended family.

Nepotism in government is tangential to development. Singapore, arguably Asia’s most successful economy, Harry Lee’s family occupies positions of power. The global financial industry is defined by nepotism whereby merit is disregarded for connections and networking.

In least developed countries money goes a very long way to determine the allocation of government contracts moreso than family connections itself.

The high consanguinity of Pakistan manifests itself most prominently in the phenomenally high rates of ovarian and breast cancer. The medical effects are being countered by the fledgling practise of undergoing medical tests prior to marriage.

Cousin marriage is not responsible for the low level of development rather Hernando De Soto’s explanation is more apt. The societies of Islam are continually hindered by the lack of liquidity in the economy and the rigidity of the property market (in Pakistan it takes years to accumulate the cash to buy a house because we just don’t have a developed mortgage market).

Partition helped solved the land titles problem because of the exchange of properties between East and West Punjab (approximately an equal exchange of Hindus & Sikhs with Muslim Punjabis).

In Pakistan ownership can be easily established but red tape, especially in the rural areas, is a hinderance. Anyway most of the Pakistani rural population are landless peasants and can’t even concieve of owning property. Interior Sindh is an excellent example where the landless Haris are at the mercy of their Wadhera landlords (Punjab is slightly better because of the canal colonies, which armed the population with property rights).

Enfranchisement can only come when people have access to property and land ownership.

Hernando de Soto touches upon the more important issue, which is generating wealth by establishing property rights and generating wealth & liquidity. A government can print as much money as it wants if the wealth of the nation is rapidly growing.

Pakistan’s black economy is phenomenally large and indeed the past few years have shown extremely high economic growth because it is being reintegrated into the economy. It is the systematic incorporation of property rights and the incorporation of the illegal economy, which is critical for development.

The impact of cousin marriages is rather limited and indeed everyone has extensive ties with the rest of society (a normal Pakistani family can have over 30 first cousins and innumerable second cousins). Our growth has been so explosive that though we now number 140mn our ancestry has been confined to a historically limited stock.

Naturally connections and “rishtidar”, family ties, exist. Indeed the system of patronage is particularly apt for the Muslim model, perhaps an echo of the “mawali” being a client of the Arabs. It is arguable whether they are a hindrance or an aid to our societal development. Indeed there is a tolerance for intermarriage with other ethnicities and religions if cousins are few and far between. Some ethnicities, like the Muhajirs who don’t practise cousin marriage, are rapidly absorbing into mainstream society because of extremely high intermarriage rates.

To be honest as for corruption it is favourable if it siphons funds from white elephant projects. The money is inevitably recycled back into the economy and has a multiplier effect.

South Asian and Islamic governments have had a trend toward extreme centralisation, which has been extremely harmful. This has been to compensate for the uneasiness of the state at the inception. Accountability just doesn’t exist as a concept because of the removal of executive and legislative power from that of the people.

Development has always followed the European “top down” model rather than the “bottom up” path adhered to by the United States.

I would agree that it is a matter of “sibling rivalry”.

The Middle East and North African regions have been interlinked with Europe for most of their history. The prime constituent elements of Judeo-Christian and Islamic civilisation are similar save one is a faith found in the Western Mediterranean whilst the other has historically found strength in the eastern basin of the Mediterranean sea.

Randall,

Pakistan has the civil service examinations for graduates for the public sector.

Private industry is dominated by a highly successful and relatively large elite with family connections, networks and contacts providing avenues for employment (anyone who’s anyone knows everyone).

This is similar to the financial industry in the City of London where contacts provide upto 50% of the jobs obtained.

Zack

“Honour” (izzat, pukthunwalli) is a tribal cultural trait because of inter-tribal competition, “face” culture and marriage seen as necessary to cement (or break) alliances. When there are competing clans then honour and love tend to clash (Romeo and Juliet).

Islam’s ethos was compatible with tribal societies and was assimilated rapidly by them because of the overlap. Hence Islam’s distribution from Morroco to Pakistan and Uighurstan but the sharp “breaks” with Spain, India (Rajasthan, E. Punjab and Gujarat), Sinic China and northern agricultural Russia (all of whom were settled and continuous civilisations).

The unity of the Islamic lands is not so much because of Islam because their fundamental tribal matrix. Indeed it would not be a leap to claim that Muslims (at least Sunnis) are historically a coalition of tribes as evidenced that a mere century ago Iran’s tribal population hovered around 25% and Pakistan was overwhelming populated by pastoralists*.

This explains the preponderance of tribal traits such as honour killings, cousin marriage and extended family kinships amongst Muslims. I would believe this trend is indicative of correlation not causation.

*Riparian West Punjab has no rain and was only suitable, prior to British irrigation works, for grazing. Incidentally there is a “barani” (rain fed) region around Lahore, which is where Partition was most contested and murderous because it was where the boundaries blurred.

Naturally I have an interest in accelerated education having finished my Masters at the age of 18. I think that children can naturally imbibe concepts, which are conventionally taught at a later age.

Forty children cloistered in one classroom is hardly the way to fully exploit their varying skills and talents.

Genocide usually is the wholesale replacementextermination and is in close leagues with demic diffusion. Variously it could be caused by men’s capriciousness (executing the population after war), advantages in immunity, technological breakthrough or merely colonisation (Nepalis in Sikkim).

However it has been a rare occurrence in the history of settled population because of the aversion of conquerors of destroying their own economic base. Hence the imperial accounts of slaughter and wholesale massacres are often exaggerated because it would destitute the entire province.

Razib, I would believe that the Mongol destruction of Iranic Central is overstated to a great degree. Historians like Juvyani were keen to please their Mongol patrons with legends of their destructiveness (on the other hand Rumi’s family did flee to Konya? from Afghanistan because of the Mongol threat, a case in point in the effectiveness of Mongol propaganda).

Notwithstanding the devastation of the qanats in Khorasan, Iran & Central Asia (incl. the affected regions) made a rapid recovery under the Mongols. After all to this day 50% of the population in Uzbekistan is estimated to be Tajiki, despite centuries of assimilation into the Turkic culture.

BTW I’m interested to see the sources on the Arab invasion of Sindh. If the population had been systematically exterminated then to this day Sindh would have retained a deep Arab character, which it does not have (Bin Qassam invasion in 711 notwithstanding Islam had an insignificant impact in Pakistan till the influx of the Ghaznavid-Ghoris).

I have yet to see convincing evidence of the “atrocities” of the Arabs during the Islamic invasions and the imperial nature of the early Arab rulers -hands off as long as the loot flows in- is a corollary for Muslim rule in India.

For instance the plunder of Somnath was a raid rather than an organised act of terror. If there had been systematic attempts at genocide, as in the Americas, one can be very certain that Hinduism would have been snuffed out of existence.

Moreso in a Sub-continent stratified by class, caste and creed it is counterfactual and divisive to continually highlight examples of “Muslim rule of terror in India”. Yes there were wars, injustices perpetrated and intolerance but that would be expected after a millennia of imperial dynamics and rule (Hindu India has Kalinga). However the arrival of Islam was a catalyst for cultural achievements that have stood the test of time and unleashed a synthesis between cultures not to be seen for centuries. If there is a unitary South Asian culture, as is commonly asserted, it’s framework was laid down during Islamic times.

As for British imperialism I retain a degree of gratitude for the positive acts instituted. However the Sepoy Rebellion, the Amritsar massacre and the Battle of Plassey are a blot in history, which built up the case for independence. It was not so much as the act itself but the lack of remorse following it that inflamed the hearts of the natives (the General in Amritsar retired to a hero’s welcome in England). The Mughals may have been culturally haughty but they eventually “Indianised” (for lack of a better word) whereas the British remained an alien presence.

Peter, the figures for Partition are generally unknown however intelligent estimates would place them at significantly lower levels than half a million. There were few “hotspots” therefore refugees were able to migrate, relatively peacefully, to the other side.

Europe has a history of deliberately “cleansing” of unwanted minorities, which frankly has continued up to present day with Kosovo, whereas such malevolency did not exist in the Sub-continent (population transfer occurred at Partition and the following wars). There is a qualitative difference at systematic extermination and spill of communal tensions. Us “Brown folk” (a crude term I take to imply Muslims and Asians west of Tibet) may be guilty of the latter from time to time but at least we have never committed the former.

My post should be shorter but I don’t have the time:) (which is actually true in that it is easier to write a long passage then a truly concise one).

Granted the UzbekTajik ethnic dicothomy is quite artificial and in its stead ther were three categories of population in civilised Central Asia (modern day Uzbekistan). The first category is the “Sart”, settled population (predominantly Tajik), followed by the two tribal groupings; Turki (Turkmen) and Qipchaq (the authentic Uzbek).

The imperial conquest of the 15th centuries replaced the dominant *Turkmen* culture with Qipchaq. Nevertheless the Tajik population of Uzbekistan (except in Bukhara-Samarkand and the southeast) merely give their ethnicity as Uzbek because they are bilingual and in the throe of assimilation. Therefore the population figures for Tajiks in Uzbekistan could be as high as 50% irrespective of CIA world factbook figures.

The shift in culture depends on what you mean by it. The Central Asian ethos, as distinct from culture, is distinctly Iranian as reflected by millenia of settlement and the fact that Uzbeks still eat pilov. Dari, till the end of the Khanate of Bukhara, was the language of court and high culture during the “Turkic” era. Furthermore it was Turks like Ghaznavid and Ghauri who were responsible for the dissemination of Persian imperial culture.

I believe that none can point to a specific break in history when Central Asia “Turkicised”.

My query in Sindh relates to a deeper issue in that Muslims historically have never been complicit in genocide or wholesale population replacement as Europeans have. Debate there may be of the “Arabization” of the MENA region but that was an example of elite cultural dominance moreso than population replacement (Arab immigrants in North Africa had never been higher than 10%). The Spanish killed off the Gaunche, whereas the Muslims would have merely converted and steadily assimilated them to Arabic speaking culture:)

There is a qualitative difference between Muslim imperialism in the Sub-continent and European settlement of the Americas in that rustic Hindu culture wasn’t eliminated nor substantially affected. Hindu culture found it’s bastion in village life, which continued as it always had. Indeed it has been mentioned that the survey about Indian independence was killed in it’s tracks after most Indian villagers had not even realised that the British had come to India in the first place.

“Indianisation” is a very nuanced topic and it depends on what is defined as an Indian. I define “India”, more appropiately Hindustan (or neutrally, Sindastan), as a continent analogous to Europe. In times past Europeans had a deep affinity for Christianity and therefore it is no contradiction that the ties of Islam are stronger for some Hindustanis.

The Turkic Bulgars “Europeanised” and in the same way the Mughals “Indianised” through intermarriage, patronage of the arts (economically disastrous but at least we got Taj Mahal) and eventually their language (Urdu is but a Persian rose blooming in an Indian summer).

The Mughals treated the sub-continent as their own whereas the British were conscious of their distinctiveness. Furthermore the Brits educated legions of Indian subjects, conscious of their lop-sided status quo and the humiliation of always playing second-jester to Europeans (in their favour they were the first conquerors to make some attempt at mass-education).

Muslims have always been “culturally” conscious (of course in the Arabian nights there is a clear partiality for lighter appearance) whereby assimilation in the Arab-Muslim matrix was the way to the top (replace Arab for Turko-Persian in the latter years). Europeans were far more adept in discerning differences of colour and race, which could not even be ameliorated by Christianisation.

Zack

Links:
http://www.iles.umn.edu/faculty/bashiri/Courses/Uzbek.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5246/Bukhara.html

I think it ultimately boils down to what is meant by Indianisation, Hinduism or even South Asian. The Mughals were heavily Indianised because it was during their rule that the medieval seed of a pan-continental culture was planted. If adherence to the Vedas and assimilation to the caste system are the criteria for Indianisation then of course the Mughals would have failed by that standard.

I am referring to the historical attitude of the imperials at the time. The Mughals, for better or for worse, recognised the Sub-continent as their bastion and identified with it through their courts in Delhi, Lahore (and a slew of other cities I can’t recall). The British were alien, and considered to be invaders, because their allegiances and their ultimate source of loyalty was to a monarch on a distant isle. In the end the British may have done much more than the Mughals for the Sub-continent (and for India with Kolkatta-Calcutta, Mumbai-Bombay and Chennai-Madras owing their genesis to British forts and their names to an Anglicised transliteration of Hindu deities) but that distinction remained.

The decimation of the indigenous population of Hispaniola was caused by mass slavery *as well as disease*. To say most of the extermination in the Americas was because of disease is a significant overstatement because there were clear instances when the indigenous population was forcibly decimated or removed. A corrolary is the Aboriginals of Australia, who may have been vanquished by disease, but were furthermore blighted by relocations to the arid zones.

Just as this thread is dedicated to revising White Guilt I am keen to pursue the events for which Muslims should feel guilty for? The stereotype of them as invaders destroying lost cultures and peoples is wholly unfounded. Israel was Christian under the Ummayyads and the Jews had already dispersed.

In the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbons movingly recounts the sacking of Constantinople by the Turks but does not mention the fact that Constantinople was being overrun and sacked by Crusaders time and time again!!! Excepting sub-saharan Africa and the tragic events of the Armenian genocide (which was committed by the secular Young Turks) Islamic cultures have never been responsible for genocide.

The BJP may moan the Islamic incursions but I feel no sympathy for the replacement of a high-caste elite with a Muslim one, which at least afforded the chance for upward advancement (even if it is at the cost of one’s religion). A Dalit could never amount to anything in a Hinducracy but upon conversion and with luck & guile make something of himself under the Mughals.

Muslims are defined by a certain humanity arising from their belief that anyone can eventually convert to Islam. This humanises them to a great extent, which is why most of the ancient population and religious minorities of the Islamic Crescent linger on to this day. Of course there is the further caveat that the distinction with non-believers is excaberated and grater intolerance for hetrodox beliefs.

Zack

I was just looking at the picture and then I suddenly realised that in the left picture you look quite like my oldest brother. I didn’t recognise the resemblance at first but now that I have I’m quite convinced of the similarity.

Sigh I guess I should post a picture of myself but considering I’m still on blogger I’ll have to wait for sometime. Actually there is a picture of me drifting round on the internet so I’ll have to dig that link some time.

Wrote a very long comment, which became more of a post so I decided to contribute to my weblog.

Anyways my final conclusion is that the Pakistani community was excessively demonised in the programme and great lengths were taken to portray it as the brown “other”, steeped in mysterious rituals and speaking in incomprehensible tongues.

Though I was chuckling when the lil white girl was fluently repeated swear words in Punjabi.

Cross posting from GNXP Comments 
My hometown is London and my father called me to let me that my brother and his girlfriend were stranded in Heathrow because of this near tragedy (our residence is close to the connection of Central London to Heathrow). So instead of going to Italy they took the train and headed off to Bordeaux; smart buggers (my one grip since being in Boston these past two months is that domestic flights in America are so bleedin’ expensive..) 
 
Anyway my thoughts on the issue; racial profiling is a necessary evil however it should be done fairly and quickly. The one thing I detested when coming to America was being singled for my Pakistani passport, made to wait in line and then taken separately for another two hours and then shouted at by the border guards; frankly that’s just humiliating and unnecessary. It should be an expedited process and EFFICIENT, a separate queue for certain countries; hell certain colours whatever it takes. 
 
I don’t know where I am on the political spectrum, all over I guess, however another take is that this dichotomy between Islam and the West is always self-serving and unnecessary. I don’t want to sound clichéd but Islam is undergoing its own evolution, which unfortunately is rupturing onto the rest of the world. Like all civilisations growing up (the youngest at 1400; troubled teens I say) Islam’s dynamic can only be fuelled within but that doesn’t mean that swift and brutal responses to acts of terror (rather than invasion which as we can see in Lebanon just does not work). You kill one of our people and we’ll get the heads of ten terrorists whatever it takes; swift, light and brutal. Why the hell not? 
 
And by the way it may have been my people “Pakistani Brits” responsible but it was also Pakistani intelligence that revealed what was happening. It’s way too multi-faceted an issue and the blogosphere makes me wonder how we’re able to boil it down to a single component. (one thing I’ve noticed in the evolution of both Razib’s and I thought processes are the introduction of multi-variable complexity; parallel evolution in fact, Razib it’s extremely distinct in your writings and this is coming from someone who’s read you from the beginning so you can take my word for it 🙂 
 
Finally the reasons Muslims are different in both countries is economic empowerment. American immigrant culture (model minority immigrants anyway) are driven by the Ivy League; they want their kids to go to medical school, the North East etc and to do requires assimilation. And as yesterday someone pointed out to me that it’s quite common to see cultural coherent first generation/second generation immigrant kids (very driven etc) but the second they come to college to “culturally survive” (his term which i found too apt) they mainstream within semesters. My long thoughts on this issues, thanks for bringin’ it up Razib and I’m going to cheat by cross posting on the weblog 🙂 
 
[just to make this clear as most people do not know zach, he is not a muslim but a bahai. just thought i’d make that clear since this is a common confusion -razib]

razib lemme know when ur in the boston-cambridge area ever..

which is why the queue in the American embassy in Islamabad snakes round the corner to two streets away 🙂  
 
anecdotally Pakistanis tend to have rather favourable impressions of India; bollywood, shared historical memory, cultural affinity and so on. if anything its the middle classes that tend to be the most rabid Islamic (neo-Islamic rediscovering Arabian customs) and anti-India. 
 
Where India may be a diverse society of thousands of sub-castes and regional inflects, Pakistan is simply a divided society on every strata.. for some reason though those divisions don’t seem to be such an impediment as long as the army can quash an uprising every now and then

haha classic!

confidence is the key to success.. it’s a credit that we imagine ourselves to be better than average. 
 
the nature of man is to struggle against being ordinary. we like to imagine ourselves unique in some way or the other..

National boundaries are about capturing the "spirit of the land" for it is the "land that makes the people".

pashtun identity is complex; for instance the pathans are the "sanksritised" variant of the pashtun tribe. weirdly enough the afghan/pakistan border, though drawn up by durrand, approximates the dialectical difference between kandhari pashto and peshwari pashto.

remember the biggest difference in the pashtuns is among the pashtuns themselves; the concept of pakthunistan, whilst very strong doesn't hold much water. particularly east of the durrand line where they've been assimilation indo-aryan and dardic language groups for the past few centuries.

i'm a huge believer in coherent nations but when i do see pakistan for instance; it's a nation that while unstable has been able to reconcile it's ethnic groups.

for instance the ethnic intermarriage rates are the highest in the region; higher than in it's neighbouring nations. pakistani sub-national & national groups are assimilating at such a tremendous rate that the entire urdu-speaking population (immigrants from india) in two generations will be so deeply intermarried to sindhis, punjabis and pathans that their agitation may be futile.

Ossetians are related to the Pashtuns for they speak an Eastern Iranian langauge. They are the descendants of the great Scythians and Samartians (from whom we get the myth of the Amazons).

this comment is getting too long so i'm going to turn it into an article and post the link thanks Steve for starting such interesting topics; they remain an inspiration to aspiring students.

Haven’t read much of gnxp or the blogs in the past few years.

Loved this article though; very articulate in highlighting how modes of production contrast with the movement of people..

I don't think there is anything wrong with Extended families, if they are modern and liberal.

I'm lucky to live in one and its a great support network. It needs constant communication to establish a positive framework but the institution can be adapted for the better.

I always believe our emerging global culture must be a true mixture of East and West rather than just a projection of one-side.

The Enlightenment has so much to teach the world but that doesn't mean there is no space for traditional values.

Also by the way I'm quite a strong libertarian as well..

The BBC just released a report that loneliness is an increasing feature of British society.

Traditionally extended clans were nepotistic but in a modern setting they are surprisingly effective when they interplay with a liberal society.

Also I know in Farsi, Hindu & Urdu there are specific words for each relative (mother's mother, father's father, mother's brother, father's sister etc..)

Do any European languages have this; or it is just the generic aunt/uncle (I know French is like that tante/oncle)..

Interesting article but what's new about it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the Ashkenazi population expanded from 50k in the 16th century and so therefore would be highly interrelated.

If there was substantial admixture it would have been during the medieval and ancient period.

I mean the genetic tests are interesting but the fact is that the Palestinians are the "indigenous" people of the region.

The Jews are like the Gypsies; a migrant people who have dispersed, retained their core population characteristics, albeit with some admixture.

I think the Jews are a perfect blend of East & West (or Orient & Eastern Europe) and the Khazar contribution is there in the Levy priesthood (50% of which has a "slavic" marker).

At any rate genetic tests, more often than not corroborate the reality on the ground.

The Iranians are a Middle Eastern people, with a significant trace of Iranic genes, all the populations of the Muslim world are fully differentiated and unique (retain their pre-Islamic heritage) but are also significantly inter-related.

We are both indigenous but the Bedouin genes have scatted far and wide throughout the Muslim world.

"I'd be surprised if there were very many at all. It seems like it would take a Jewish ancestry of like 1/8th or less for a modern young American Jew not to identify as Jewish. Being half Jewish isn't even a thing anymore for Americans, it seems. And especially never mind maternal lineage and all that."

In Russia and the Russian diaspora is full of half and quarter Jews who consider themselves "nationality" Jewish.

I think that's right because of a mix of persecution, ability and history (also the world is obsessed by them) Jewish ancestry figures more prominently than any other.

So in a way outmarriage is a win-win it diversifies the "inbred" Ashkenazi gene pool, without seriously threatening it (the Orthodox are more than compensating, but at the same time strengthens the cosmopolitaness of the Jewish race.

"A spokesman for a Muslim group in Berlin said; ‘He is a tired old white Christian male full of prejudice and few ideas.'"

Hasn't he just summed up Europe :=D

Regardless of immigration the European continental is just ultra-conservative in all the wrong ways.

Irreligious, anti-natalist and anti-capitalist; whereas the US is passionate (on either theism or atheism), pro-natalist (in parts) and pseudo-capitalist (the Tea Party is undoing the B-O legacy of big government).

One thing I will say immigration may have its pros & cons (I can never be neutral since I am a Pakistani immigrant to the UK so I accept I have a biased view) but the difference is what the host society is like.

If its young and energetic immigrants are immediatel absorbed; if its tired and old the immigrants stand out like a sore thumb.

I like to give the example of Pakistan; the 4mn Afghan refugee/immigrants was the largest in the world absolutely and relatively. However the "demographic swamping" was never an issue because the demo profile of the Pak population was quite young and natalist.

When a people stop breeding you have to ask why irrespective of immigration.

Interesting post and certainly raises the valid question that after a couple of generations “mixture” just gets blended into the population.

Sort of leads the way for the high immigration Western societies; it may just be that in a couple of generations there will be evidence of mixture but ethnic cohesiveness won’t disintegrate.

At any rate its always comforting to know when human populations didn’t die out but in one way or another persisted in a new permutation.

It does raise the question whether “aesthetic preferences” had an effect on why some populations look differently to their “genetic mix” (Saudi Arabs with their ~30% Sub-Saharan African population and Jewish pops, which resemble their host population but are genetically interlinked).

Pan-Indianism is a formidable concept because at the end of the day; India is both a secular, national, geographic, religious and spiritual concept.

Its a fusion of so many different elements and has such assimilative tendencies that "Indian" is a shorthand for anything South Asian (and beyond).

However the geography of India precludes it from being a great power and its diaspora tend to be assimilate & intermarry quite quickly; also the state of India has done an abysmal job of courting Diaspora Indians, almost has the same disdain for them that Israel shows to the Diaspora.

The Orthodox Jews are getting poorer because they have 5-10kids apiece.

As a side-note; Google translation is so cool its really opened up the web!

Interesting article/post; very much like Pakistan other Muslim countries/Third world countries.

English language of elite
Urdu language of the huge middle class
Native (Punabi, Sindhi, etc) language of rural

Also Urdu serves for Punjabi as a sort of “proper medium”; the languages are similar enough that a switch is possible. To be fair to Pakistan after the 1971 War of Independence the language policy has settled down; language use is still very vigorous very few languages are in danger of being wiped out.

Corresponds to religious fervour; English-speakers are starved for Western influences. The Urdu speaking classes are religious (note this is different to “Muhajir” or “Urdu-speakers”; many of whom are now English-speakers) and the Native speakers are syncretic.

I think/hope languages will survive; usually it is related to community/spiritual adherence. In the traditional context languages survive because of community/faith/ethnicity or otherwise they get institutionalised.

Strangely enough the Europeans/Japanese haven’t really bothered with English. I think ultimately though English will have to be the world’s “functional” language whereas auxiliary dialects/languages will be used for aesthetic/sentimental purposes.

The will of English is all-pervasive, or so it seems, I’m just so curious to understand how non-English speakers are plugged into the world.

Onur interesting data!

Afghanistan is a unique case you should see the pictures of the 1950’s it looks exactly like Tehran.

Take a look at these pictures of Afghanistan!

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/27/once_upon_a_time_in_afghanistan?page=0,1

Razib what is very interesting the picture series discusses infant mortality, which you have touched on too. What a coincidence!

As I always tell the naysayers “best time to be alive”. My friend was like “I wish I was in the Renaissance” era I retorted that she would have probably been dead from giving birth to her fifth kid.

People forget longevity stats are directly correlated to infant mortality rates.

Huge Asimov fan – I say bring on the robots. I’m now reading Arthur C Clake though and its interesting his 50’s works are all to do with the extinction of religion (almost every novel presents a “novel” way to religion’s end).

“Traditionalists” who fear change are invariable in the wrong.

One can be a faithful and devout theist and yet counter that “God can be wrong”. My problem with religion (and I would argue I’m a good believer) is the absolutism and rigorous application of the “law of God”. As I was telling my brother yesterday (or day before can’t remember) any God who’s so concerned with rules, regulations and technicalities isn’t a God I want to believe in anyway, even if (s)he does exist. I would imagine mine to be on the cutting edge of technology, pondering away moral dilemmas and looking at our quirks & discoveries with mild to riveting interest.

Anyway my point being bring on the robots, cloning and extra terrestrials; it’ll definitely make life more interesting. And kudos to the Japanese for mechanising/automating our society; the concept of human is far richer and powerful than automated tasks. And if the day does come that AI is smarter than us I hope by that time they’ll figure out enough about us to understand our emotions and be as (if not more) empathic than us.

Great post (the map really speaks a 1000 words) – ordered Ostler’s book to skim over.

Nice summary of varying ways of language diffusion particularly liked the anecdote of how German was perceived as a Persian dialect.

Also the “similarity” these for Arabic & Aramaic is attractive though recent genetic data does point to very strong Bedouin influx allegedly.

@ Onur – British Pakistani

My grandfather’s tribe were the Kakazai who were Pathans settled in the Punjab. The ethnogenesis of the tribe seems to be Afghan & low-caste Sikh converts, which is why we’re found in East Punjab as well.

Like a lot of Pakistanis Punjabis; I have forgotten ancestral ties to the Wild West, which in our case is Afghanistan.

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

Yes as I mentioned in the Dienekes post; I was reading something (online website always dubious) about Sassanian settlement of East Africa. I had dismissed it as cultural and patriotic bravado but perhaps there is something to it.

So interesting you say that because just now I received the argument that Pakistan’s actions in Bangladesh were not “Colonial” since only the Western powers can be colonial. To provide the context Japan had apologised to Korea and I questioned whether we should apologise to Bangladesh; the amount of negative responses I received were shocking and slightly disgusting.

Humanitarianism demands that wrongs be redressed regardless of who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. To not even have a sensible discussion about the need for an apology is an indictment.

Its interesting considering that 11 out of the 13 senior civil posts of that time were occupied by Urdu speakers. In fact there is a statistic there were more Bengali speakers in senior positions during the British era rather than the Pakistani one.

There is the “Ethnic” complex whereby ethnics world over seem to constantly indulge in victimisation. Gross generalisation I know but its really tiresome; the reason the West triumphs (or triumphed) was that it organised a unified yet diverse civil society.

I am involved in ethnic organisations in London; it is ridiculous how difficult it is proving to organising them. It’s a dichotomy the condemnation of White people but need for approval from them is a subliminal and strong desire.

Lol Razib it has been a while – 2002.

Thanks for the acknowledgement; I would venture the same, if not more, likewise. We have had some great interactions and I’ve always learnt from your vast knowledge and eloquence.

I would venture I was more “jingoist” at that time. Time, and age, has softened me out; I would also think my family & I are now post-Pakistani Baha’i. These identities remain salient but subliminal.

For instance my brothers have paired off with Indians (one London Sikh the other a half Gujju jain Anglo mix) and we’re so much more liberal in ourlooks; the noughties have been a great decade.

India’s social attitudes, I would venture are colored by caste. Pakistan is characterized by a heady mix of feudalism and fanaticism; India’s held by caste prejudice (which only operates in the rural areas).

I’ve been here alot about Bangladesh’s social transformation; economically its probably held back by access to Calcutta? At any rate I’m still fuming about how some (Pakistani) friends have written how my comments on the “Bengali genocide” disturbed them.

Identity and identity construction is all well and good; but whatever caste or creed we belong to we are human beings first. To answer your comment on the other thread even if Bangladeshis themselves have “gotten” over it; it doesn’t change anything there is a “moral debt”. I find it hypocritical to advocate Kashmir but forget Bangladesh and Bihar; frankly it smacks of racism all around. Hypocritical in light of the “colour blind” Ummah, which it obviously is not.

I would like to remind desis in our “fair-conscious” culture that logically means Western Europeans are superior since they are the “fairest & loveliest of them all”.

But to echo the earlier thread are the noble savages, i.e. colored people, even capable of racism? (where’s that sarcasm mark when you need).

also I haven’t ignored your facts and figures they speak for themselves – I think South Asia needs to collectively address its issues and work on them. I am an eternal optimist.

Also I would argue that Pakistani “ambivalence” on terrorism needs to be addressed. Whatever causes & greviances you have in this day & age there must be an absolute rejection of any violence. We are all sophisticated people let’s use words instead of weapons.

I’m morphing into a quasi-social activist offline and a pontificator online. Ha!

@ Razib thanks for the Zee link – this is shocking I have publicised this story. I had not read it and its a disgusting incident of how prejudice is so corrosive; particularly to defile someone after death (and I imagine he was a youth since he was a member of the Youth Parliament).

Pakistanis have become very defensive and everything is “Stani bashing”; well that’s because advocating illiberal values garners no sympathy!

““It was shocking. He could have been marked as Hindu or non-Muslim, but using the word ‘kafir’ is the worst example of intolerance.’’ Muneeb Afzal, a Member of the Youth Parliament (MYP) was quoted as saying.”

Erm what’s the point about labelling the body at all? Is there a reason religion has to be involved in the morgue? Its interesting how even the “liberal” perspective is barbaric (imho).

When the path gets rough its an indication its the right one and yes the Bengali genocide is a key point in our national reconciliation. I’m very convinced its something we need to do as a nation to heal.

Also I love Urdu (I speak it badly) but I don’t think it has to be at the exclusion of other languages. Also I believe in a South Asian context one language must predominate and that is English; I detest our chattering classes (across all borders) who fight for their language rights but chuck their kids at English speaking schools. I detest that hypocrisy; English is the language of the world and I want desi kids back home (of all classes not only our chattering classes) to have that tool to compete in a global environment.

@ Omar I agree about the points vs. Indian & Pakistan national ideology. But India’s positive vision provides an aspiration despite the mushrooming of “vegetarian colonies”.

Also I think the whole “two Pakistanis” (Pashtunistan vs. Punjab) is slightly overhyped in reality but I take your point. NWFP is very “Indian” and the Punjab is very “Afghan”; Pakistan can be best though to be a medial zone.

We’re are an Indian cleft region and I am proud to be Indian though as a Pakistani I don’t subscribe to the vision of “Bharat”.

I could rant on but I’m going to stop.

“…when dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases. ”

— Robert Anton Wilson (Cosmic Trigger 1: Final Secret of the Illuminati)

Onur – funnily enough on the tube to work this morning I was ruminating on alt. history; if Iran had stayed Zoroastrian and consequently Islam would have stayed as an Arabian/Middle Eastern religion.

As far as I can see Islam “consumed” the Indo-Malaya world; almost in its entirety. I was at a talk of the Shahnameh (the Persian epic poem) and how the Mongols actually triggered the use of the Shahnameh as a national epic to legitimize their reign (propaganda basically).

At any rate I think Hinduism and India’s problems go a bit more than Islam; caste really is a serious issue and can’t be glazed over. In fact Razib mentioned (I think in conversation with you) that South Asian Muslims take it to the next level.

I have been reflecting on this off the cuff remark quite alot the past few weeks and been noticing it. Its a real pleasure having dinner with “religious” Iranians in London, most of the time you wouldn’t guess that they are actually religious. Not to generalise but they are so rational and tolerant and “presentable” its incredible.

The flip side is that similar religious South Asian Muslims in England wear beards, dress in odd ways and just stick out as a sore thumb and embrace this ghetto culture.

There are many reasons; Iranians are a homogeneous Shi’ite nation so there is no “Other” to prove their Muslimness (as there is in the Subcontinent). Furthermore South Asian Muslims are undergoing a transitory shift from folk practises to “True Islam” (the literal version as opposed to lite Sufi); the lower middle class are always the most radical. In Pakistan the peasants are tolerant esoterics, who follow their pir (as Hindus do the Guru), the middle classes are religious and educated and by the book and the elite just all jump on the “Sufi” bandwagon as a way to reconcile their faith and decadence 🙂

If the Subcontinent had been all Muslim for instance; we could have seen the same embrace of “Pre-Islamic” history as in Indonesia or Iran perhaps? Also in color conscious South Asia there is a definite and strong trend to identify with the invading Muslim forces; every other Punjab I know is a “Quraysh”; didn’t know they settled en masse from Mecca to the Punjab (sarc mark needed again) But then again there is this “nativist” pride in Pakistan between ahl-e-zameen and ahl-e-zaban (people of the land vs. people of the language). So in a way regional and ethnic pride is at an all time high despite overarching Muslim unity.

Anyway I find South Asia fascinating and love to talk about it; rates almost as highly as the Middle East. Also I think it is important for Diasporas world over to be the “moral conscience” of their homelands otherwise what’s the point?

Also “Hinduism” basically is not Islam, Xtianity, Judaism, Parsis, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs in South Asia. Everyone else is a Hindu and Sanskritisation can be a very corrosive process; the Naxalites almost can be seen as tribals rebelling against Sanskritisation.

South Asian Islam is more fervent because of our atavistic Hinduism, which is more “ritualistic” and also quite “traditional”. Usually I find with Arabs, being Arab is almost enough to being a good Muslim while Persians have such strong pre-Islamic identities (real or imagined – I was scolded last night for using “Inshallah” by a Zoroastrian convert) that they don’t need to prove anything. Turkishness is almost all-encompassing so the only peoples in the Muslim world who are unsure about their identities really are the South Asians (the Malay peoples do exhibit this insecurity but they are still quite far and their genealogies can’t be cooked up quite as easily).

This is all from interaction and intuition; I seem to have given up on facts & figures a long time ago 😛

“At any rate I think Hinduism and India’s problems go a bit more than Islam; caste really is a serious issue and can’t be glazed over.

Caste is a very natural part of the tradition of the people of the Subcontinent, so much so that castes correlate very well with genetics. I don’t think Hindus – even irreligious ones – have any objection to the caste system except some modernies among them.”

Onur, with respect, caste violence in the rural areas is a serious issue. Its a series of daily humiliations, particularly in Bihar. It can’t be treated so glibly that some how “caste is accepted”.

Yes in an urban neutered form its perhaps okay (replaced by communalism and language) but in rural north India (punjab, rajasthan, hindi belt basically) caste and folk Hinduism are a real problem.

We forget India is a very Hindu country and also the Muslim population is urban not rural. Rural India is overwhelming Hindu except in some bits of the Hindi Belt and Mappilastan.

The South doesn’t so bad but would love to know more. I know Arundhati Roy really focuses on this region but I guess I’m morphing into a South Asian Liberal.

I would like a capitalist, confederal and English speaking South Asia respecting (but not defined) by historical, cultural and religious mores. I am dreaming away now 😛

Indian hegemony so often translates to Hindu upper caste hegemony; which is why I’m glad now democracy is propelling untouchable leaders throughout even though they are bad for the economy (Mayawatis constructing a palace in UP – how weird is that?).

Amazing study and makes sense.

This is what is happening in India.

Sikhs, Hindus Help Rebuild Mosques Destroyed during Partition
http://www.radianceweekly.com/212/5744/TARGETING-MUSLIMS-A-Bane-of-Plural-Bharat/2010-07-11/Cover-Story/Story-Detail/212/5747/TARGETING-MUSLIMS-A-Bane-of-Plural-Bharat/2010-07-11/Communal-Harmony/Story-Detail/Sikhs-Hindus-Help-Rebuild-Mosques-Destroyed-during-Partition.html

One fine morning, a group of boys decided to clear the muck. Within days, the entire village – now made up of Hindus and Sikhs – joined them. Says 20-year-old Laddi: “We were never short of money or material. Anyone who passed this way would contribute in cash or kind. Someone brought five bags of cement, another donated bricks and so on….”
This, when there were no permanent Muslim families left in the village. But, once repaired, the mosque began to be used. A few Muslim migrants from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, labourers and petty trades-people began praying here. A maulvi from a neighbouring village now comes to lead Friday prayers. To the delight of 80-year-old Nachattar Kaur, who was born and brought up here, the sound of the azaan (call to prayer) is being heard again, after decades. “We have always believed in this shrine,” she says. “It is a house of God. God bless these boys for restoring the oldest relic of our village.”

good point Onur – Pakistan is “haunted” by India which is why the Muslim identity is so stressed.

For instance Jinnah & Iqbal wanted us to engage with the Muslim world more fully so I’m sure if we had not had Kashmir (don’t want to go into that) and did not have outlying issues with India we would have been much much more desi. We haven’t had a clean separation yet; the question is would ever have had one.

In the Gulf for instance Pakistanis embrace desiness avowedly as they realise that erm they’re not allowed in the fraternity 😛

and only when it is the religion of almost everyone in a region or country it softens it tone.

that isn’t the case for pakistan. the % of non-muslims keep declining, and it gets nastier and nastier. it also wasn’t the case in the early muslim period. as the % of dhimmi’s dropped their debilitations increased.

Now its no longer the non-Muslim minorities but what “type of Muslim” are you.

Interesting enough though my friend was telling me that 500 Ahmadis were denied flood rations because of course they had Ahmadi on their identity card (this was in response to the Premchand issue I’ve been publicising).

But again daily interaction of minorities is very class dependent; the elite religious (Parsis, some Christians, Shi’ites) are assimilated. Pakistan is very very class dependent like most of South Asia and communalism exacerbates it.

Great post Razib; around the Muslim world in 11points.

Very interesting about Persian naming convention I’ve always been trying to find out about that but could never get a good response.

point 11) it is really shocking about the “wipeout” of minority populations in the “wings of India” (both Bengal & Punjab); where concomitantly the Muslim population of India has been burgeoning (the eyes do not lie even after account for regional/linguistic/class difference they are consistently pro-natalist than the Hindu pop).

It would be interesting to see the growth of Islamic populations of South over a period of a couple of situation.

“It would be interesting to see the growth of Islamic populations of South over a period of a couple of situation.”

It would be interesting to see the growth of the Muslim population as a % of South Asia over a period of the past few centuries (perhaps since the arrival of Islam).

Will there ever be a time when Hindus in South will a plurality and not a majority.

I personally think its a far way off, if ever. Even if we were to assume 30% Muslim population (which is the uppermost limit by any stretch of the imagination); thats 360mn Muslims in a population of 1.2bn (rounding up).

I would estimate the Muslim population of Undivided India to be around 30-40% but at the end of the day numbers aren’t as weighty as influence. For instance in Lebanon even though the Christians are clearly in the minority (demographically) because of their disproportionate economic and political weight (apparently a third of the land is owned by the Maronite church or so I was told) they’re treated as parity.

The “Muslim demographic majority” of Lebanon is basically the underclass fighting over in the slums (the green line has shifted to between the shi’ite/sunni line) and the upper classes emulate the Christian elite. Muslim upper classes, thankfully are very liberal (or so I find); its just their morally vacuous content to oppress the lower orders through silent dogma (allow the mullahs to do their job for them). Sort of like high status caste Hindus; its more important to be the big fish in a small lake than a little fish in a large ocean. These “national elites” are actually the ones who arrest their countries development since unless they are incentivised they’re happy with the status quo.

Numbers matter but not pure demographic weight I would argue its more to do with the “economic weight” of a minority; therefore I would hazard in British Pakistan (punjab and sindh) the minority population was around 20% but the economic weightage could have been as high as par (if not higher) since Hindu/Sikhs were the mercantile classes.

I like Amy chua’s book world on fire; I really think intermarriage ameliorates minority situations, endogamy exacerbates it (for instance Indians in East Africa). So what ideally minorities want to aim for is a healthy rate of intermarriage, which assimilates them into the mainstream but at the same time low enough to preserve some sort of cultural identity through the generations.

Also it could be that certain minorities (Parsis) can drop the whole “genetic exclusiveness” thing and actually start welcoming mixed marriages and redefine the culture. I have Persians friends who converted to Zoroastrianism and they dare not walk into a Parsi temple.

Interesting great article; it’s great to breed out.

Mixed race kids always seem to be more vigorous but that’s just my observation.

It’s good to clean the blood; I liked your points on genetic loads, quite interesting.

My thoughts are the NHS shouldn’t bear the cost burden and frankly we are organising talks on this topic (BritPak 2-3% of pop but 30% of disabilities). We have to do what the Jews did in the 70’s and 80s (after all Ashkenazis are related to one another apparently as 4th-5th cousins because of bottleneck and rapid population expansion).

Also lots of BritPak girls in their 30’s who aren’t finding a mate because they are looking for Mr. Right. I try explaining to them don’t look for Mr. Muslim but look for Mr. Decent; intermarriage with mainstream will also help soften our image. If Anglo-Saxons had more mixed Pakistani children they’d be much more sympathetic.

I’m very a big fan of intermarriage as a way of ameliorating this and hopefully shift away from cousin/forced marriages. Our traditions do state that marriage is a marriage between families but its time we modernised that concept to place individual choice and wants at the heart of the institution.

Also great points on the Wedgewoods, Keynes, Darwins and other interrelated families. Really broad and well-written post actually!

Apologies for misspeaking and using such a colloquialism.

Anon – I agree to your comment there is a significant difference between cousin marriage and marrying within one ethnicities.

I really need to read up more on “hybrid” vigor; etc. Still learning so again will be more careful in the future.

Amazng pictures of the Russian Empire; mindblowing as you say.

Picture 20 could be present day Afghanistan; I’ve seen a picture much like it.

What is interesting all the Jewish & Christian folk are in national costumes, so you can tell are remnants from another day. The Muslim folk, on the other hand, are also in national costumes but one could easily argue that alot of them could be mistaken for the present day; particularly more the women. I never really realised how prevalent the hijab/niqab/purdah really was; it seemed to have been the national dress.

The colour photography does connects the divide between the first and second half of the 20th century.

I guess you are right that we perceive the past through the relics/images but I’ve just realised I don’t tend to “visualise” past or future all that much.

Fascinating story about the hysterectomy.

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/society/rise-in-number-of-spinsters-as-emiratis-marry-foreigners-1.672200

Not directly related to your post but here are the new restrictions:

A proposal in regard to the laws that regulate the marriage of Emirati men to foreign women has been prepared, although it has not yet been approved. The law will include obtaining a special permission to marry from the Ministry of Interiors. Permission will only be granted if the marriage meets criteria such as:
1. The wife must be Arab and Muslim.
2. The husband must not be married to any other woman at the time.
3. The age difference should not exceed 25 years.
4. The husband must be financially capable of supporting the woman.
5. The couple must be free of any hereditary or sexually transmitted diseases.
6. The wife must not be banned from entering the country for any reason.

Good thing that a “cultural arbitrage” is happening where the poorer states are supplying brides for the richer ones. Though it does smack of “sex-trafficking” and its another indictment of the sorry state of affairs in South Asia.

Obviously sex-selection practices are barbaric and I guess alot of education is required. Its fascinating that Bangladesh has moved to a two-child family; in Pakistan three or four is still the preference. It’s reducing but if people could afford they would want more.

The path to a more unified world is where such regional imbalances are corrected out either through migration, trade or labour movements.

My uncle married a Dominican in Westchester, New York. Their social circle are Dominstanis or Pakiminicans and its a fairly common combo since some Pakistan med students had studied in the Dominican republic.

Anyway I was reading through the thread about Razib’s comments on Hispanic identity. I remember a Doministani girl was telling her Dominican mom that her friend wasn’t black but Dominican.

I had heard it in passing but I found it hilarious at the time. After that the girl, who was black for all intent and purposes, was “Dominican”.

I really find Hispanics somewhat similar to South Asian; in the concept of browness or Desiness. Forgive the vast generalisation everyone aspires to be fair and lovely (as white as they can be really) to emulate ancient or medieval conquerors. At the same time there is this intangible concept of desiness or “Hispanicness”, which means whatever your colour or culture you belong, even if the subcultural differences are huge and vast.

Could it do with the linguistic area; South Asia is pretty much Hinglish dominated whereas Latin America is Spanish/Portuguese (my Columbian colleague speaks to Portuguese clients according to him its something you can pick up).

Just my thoughts; race is a funny concept, very few hard and fast rules in it.

Every time I try to avoid controversy I get mired into it 🙂

I don’t like to impose my views on others but to my mind gendercide is a function of a backward culture.

Another thing caught a DS9 episode last night.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sight_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine)

Captain Sisko has a love interest; I was certain the whole episode she was Indian (picture in the link).

Turned out half African American and half Italian American. Usually I find in mixed-race union children tend to look more like the race of their father (even accounting for obvious genetic dominance).

Anyway my point being in Hollywood its very rare to see a black/white romantic relationship (Will Smith’s famous statements in Hitch that the female lead Eva Mendes was the only acceptable counterbalance for a black lead) but other “people of color” can do.

Its really very strange. One thing about the West is that it is the first society to consciously delve into color consciousness; most “people of colour” back home are extraordinarily sensitive to gradations of skin tone. Malcolm Gladwell in his last book Outliers has a moving paragraph about Jamaican society’s attitude to Creoles. It was only discrimination in England which made his Creole mother she was and would remain black.

Divide the world into 3 zones.

Zone A: Developed Nations
Zone B: Developing Nations
Zone C: Frontier Markets

Within each zone there should be (ideally) freedom of trade, capital and labour (in that order).

Also each elevated Zone should have rights above the lower Zone. So people from Zone A can settle in B & C (indeed they should be encouraged to) but limited migration from the latter Zones. Zone B can settle in Zone C but not vice versa.

The world has inequitable balances and this would smooth them out. At the moment because of national pride (a silly thing) there exists sovereign arbitrage, which only the rich and the smart exploit.

This way the West & Japan have unlimited "Lebensraum" (living space) but at the same time the Developing world benefits by importing people.

A major reason why the developing world is poor is because they don't have Western business practices and savvy. It's all about equalizing the balances.

I stumbled on this article (can’t remember how now) about the “Dead joining the Living in a Family Celebration”. This passage reminded me of this piece

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/world/africa/06madagascar.html?_r=1&src=twt&twt=nytimes

Mr. Rakotonarivo was in the midst of such a meaningful conversation on a recent afternoon. “I am asking them for good health, and of course if they would help me to accumulate wealth, this is good also,” he said.

But others considered such supplications contrary to their Christian beliefs.

“We do not believe we can communicate with the dead, but we do believe the famadihana strengthens our family between the generations,” said Jean Jacques Ratovoherison, 30, a manager for a technology firm.

Was reading up on the Shi’ites of Eastern Saudi; seems they blend into the Bahraini culture. Would love to form a “Tenth Parallel” tour group and visit fault lines around the world.

Perhaps everyone’s a little bit Pagan in the end? Organised religion is ultimately a tool to systematise and dogmatise what should be a very personal journey; understanding and making sense of your surroundings.

Like the bits on Haifa (obviously) and the Protestant population of Hungary.

Like the thoughts on ethnic markers; there is a very good article on how Pakistan is built on an “ethnic marker”. But anyway strange how Christian evangelism strengthened tribal identity in the face of a homogeneous national culture; can see why the Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim South/South East Asian cultures are so annoyed at Christianity. It gives these marginal populations rapid advancement and direct access to the West instead of assimilation.

What is interesting in your article that I have changed my perception. I always assumed Christianity to be a “foreign” religion in Africa and Asia apart from some ancient presence (Ethiopia, Mid East, Kerala etc) now I’ve realized that evangelical imperial Christianity may have actually strengthened diversity and prevented tribal extinction, absorption and assimilation and that is a good thing.

In an alt-history it would have been fascinating if Islam had penetrated to the tip of Southern Africa and the Philippines. At first I always thought that it was kind of strange that the Philippines was named after King Philip but then come to think of it quite a few places are named after individuals; Africa, Europe, Asia, America, Bharat, Saudi Arabia, Israel and of course the Philippines.

“the psychological raw material is the same. as i’ve noted, in theological incorrectness the author presents data that cross-culturally religious believers conceptualize the supernatural in a very similar fashion. the theological aspects which overlay the cognitive models seem to be superficial verbal formula which serve as group identity markers to which people have strong emotional attachment.”

Yes there is a very interesting article on where a Zoroastrian from Yazd (either my ancestor or ancestor’s cousin) is discussing the signs of Prophethood and it was highlighted that his conception of religion almost overlapped his Shi’ite correligionist. I found it after digging through the net so here it is.

http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/conversion.html
Mulla Bahram’s self-understanding of his conversion is not an untypical one for Iranian Bahá’ís. He clairns that the Bahá’í religion confirrns the beliefs he held prior to becoming a Bahá’í. Yet the proofs he adduces to support this are not Zoroastrian in origin but rather are drawn from Shí’í paradigms. A prophet arises, he makes a claim, reveals a book, and is received by those pure ones willing to suffer in the path of God.

“as for your sense of what religion should be, as an irreligious person i won’t lecture people on the True Religion, but you seem to conflating mysticism with religiosity as such. i think mysticism is very much a minority taste empirically, and most religionists thrive on the communal-group aspect, which expresses itself in ritual and shared norms.”

Oh no I didn’t mean that; by personal journey its our conception of the universe and life be it spiritual, empirical, atheistic, religious. Religion purports to answer the meaning of our life, which at the end is a personal and individualistic journey. All human beings have to figure that out for themselves; some may just want to do good, some may just say that its “to be” and others that its divine will or finally that there is no purpose and that its a defunct question altogether.

My point is that at the end it should be a very intellectual and individual search for the “Truth” whatever that Truth may be, in what ever form. Religion is a comforting ritual to obscure that search or provide platitudes for it (nothing is more comforting that others hew to your line of thinking). I’m not for/against religion per se but its just my observation.

I just like dislike group think and want to encourage skeptical minds to emerge; not only of religion but all biases. I like the motto of Iranian.com; “nothing is Sacred”, everything should be up for discussion.

Also to explain my “Pagan” comment its just I find “strict” and dry monotheism so rare even very religious people tend to have very mystical and colourful beliefs. Perhaps by paganism I should have used supernatural.

Good to know on Manila and interesting to note on Kongo and wider Africa. Like the thoughts on Malay Chams want to read up on them.

Chapter 15 is well-written!

The Thar Desert between Pakistan & India is empty with Gypsy like tribes.

Let's carve that out as a Gypsy homeland 😛

“Originally inhabited by peoples with close cultural affinities with those of Persia, indeed, likely the root of the peoples of Persia, by the historical period Turan developed a distinctive identity as a frontier or march. It was in Turan where the Turk met the Iranian (a class which included non-Persian groups, such as the Sogdians), from the pre-Islamic Sassanians down to the present day.”

Great piece.

Just a thought occured to me “Turan” (Central Asia) is to Iran what Pakistan is to the Subcontinent.

The original genesis of the civilisation happens on the Frontier which then migrates to the protected heartland but the Frontier, where the civilisation originated, then starts to diverge historically and genetically.

Of course I imagine that Pakistanis are more “Indian” than Central Asians are Iranian but its just a very interesting analogy. Also the Brits re-Indianised West Punjab through the canal system.

“99% endogamy per generation would imply that they’d be 79% South Asian today. 95% endogamy would result in them being 29% South Asian. 90% endogamy would mean that they’d be 8% South Asian. Reality is more complex. It is likely that in the early periods when social norms had not hardened and Roma were less numerous the endogamy rates were probably far lower, especially as the Gypsy bands mixed with other destitute groups in the Balkans. The evidence of lots of structure across the Gypsy groups points to endogamy drilling down to a lower level of organization than just the ethnic group, which would be consistent with tendencies within South Asian culture more broadly.”

The endogamy rates are fascinating. I was reading that Parsis have a very high amount of Gujarati ancestry on the maternal side.

Lots of these minorities have admixed; this reminds me of your Roman Empire and Jewry post. Mixture may have been much less in the time of entrenched Abrahamism but in my opinion it wasn’t really until the 19th-20th century where such identities crystallised and intermixture was forbidden.

I agree Onur but I was also thinking of the recent incursions of the Pathans and Baloch.

For instance apparently 40% of Sindhis have Baloch roots; extraordinarily high number.

Obviously South Asia is a segmented tribal society, so different tribes will have different roots but I agree that it remains overwhelming South Asian.

Off note but about the derivation of the word Gypsy from Egypt.

I was looking it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry_(etymology)

The basic roots of the word “chemistry”, essentially, derive from the ancient study of how to transmute “earthen” metals into “gold” in combination with thoughts on alchemical spells as well endeavors into a quest for the Philosopher’s stone. The majority of authors agreed that the word “chemistry” has an Egyptian origin, based on the ancient Egyptian word kēme (chem), which stands for black. [4][5] In short, most agree that alchemy was born in ancient Egypt, where the word “Khem” was used in reference to the fertility of the flood plains around the Nile.[6]
Some, however, maintain that the word “chemistry” has a Greek origin, based on the Greek word χημεία (chemeia) meaning “cast together”.[7] Others reason that the word alchemy is derived from the Greek for “The Egyptian Art”.[8]

Really I thought it was an invasion around 1000 AD?

Need to read up more.

There is a very significant difference between West and East Punjab. Also that’s why in Pakistan we have the Siraiki movement; there are several sub-regions in the Punjab (in the Pakistani ones) that have very distinct histories.

Omar I grew up in ISB and completely did not get point number 3.

Mind you I’m one of the Pakistanis who advocate we should embrace our Indian/Hindu heritage far more than we do (more saris say I) but there is a case that there was a level of some distinction between the northwest and the rest just as there was for present Bangladesh and the rest of the India. Apparently when the river Padma converged into the Ganges it created fertile settlement and at the time north India/Bengal was ruled by Muslims so Muslims settled Bangladesh. I’m paraphrasing very badly “The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760”

http://hudsoncress.net/hudsoncress.org/html/library/history-travel/Eaton,%20Richard%20-%20The%20Rise%20of%20Islam%20and%20the%20Bengal%20Frontier.pdf

The notion of one Punjab is actually a recreation of the British irrigation works also the Hindkos of NWFP are Lahnda speakers (a language classification which has admittedly under dispute).

Also the idea of a Hindu and Sikh settled population in West Punjab; alot of the migration actually happened during the British era so for instance in Partition some Sikh clans used to remigrate back to their homes in the East. This is not too imply that there were no indigenous Hindus/Sikhs in West Punjab (the amount of Gurudwaras and Mandirs are testament to that) but that prior to the British West Punjab was very tribal and very Muslim.

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Punjab

The Punjab may be divided into four great natural divisions: the Himalayan tract, the submontane tract, the eastern and Natural western plains and the Salt range tract, which have Divisions. characteristics widely different from each other. The Himalayan tract, which includes the Punjab hill states, consists of 20,000 sq. m. of sparsely inhabited mountain, with tiny hamlets perched on the hill-sides or nestling in the valleys. The people consist chiefly of Rajputs, Kanets, Ghiraths, Brahmans and Dagis or menials. The eastern and western plains, which are divided from each other by a line passing through Lahore, are dissimilar in character. The eastern are arable plains of moderate rainfall and almost withcqut rivers, except along their northern and eastern edges. They are inhabited by the Hindu races of India, and contain the great cities of Delhi, Amritsar and Lahore. They formed, until the recent spread of irrigation, the most fertile, wealthy and populous portion of the province. The western plains, except where canal irrigation has been introduced, consist of arid pastures with scanty rainfall, traversed by the five great rivers, of which the broad valleys alone are cultivable. They are inhabited largely by Mahommedan tribes, and it is in this tract that irrigation has worked such great changes.

just as a side note it was an innocuous comment and we end up talking about Pakistan. usually Iran & Iranians used to be more interesting than Pakistan but now it seems Pakistan is all the rage.

@ Omar. I think we can define Pakistan as a Central South Asian nation or a South Central Asian nation but who really cares if we are South Asian or Central Asian or both. Personally I don’t lose any sleep over it; we are still a backward intolerant country and more important things to focus on.

Obviously we have a national complex about our “Hindu origins” but its something we are now beginning to address.

Let’s be proud of our pre-Islamic heritage whether it be Aryan, Dravidian or Dalit or what not.

Also let’s work toward greater unity with India; I think we are an “Indo-Afghan” (more Indian than Afghan imho) nation we have equally strong ties with our two neighbours, it doesn’t have to be an either/or proposition.

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~sj6/eatonapproachconversion.pdf

This leaves East Bengal and West Punjab as the two areas of the subcontinent possessing the highest incidence of Muslim conversion among the local population. What is striking about those areas, however, is that they lay not only far from the center of Muslim political power, as noted, but that their indigenous populations had not, at the time of
their contact with Islam, been integrated into the Hindu social system. In Bengal, Muslim converts were drawn mainly from Rajbansi, Pod, Chandal, Koch, or other indigenous groups which had had but the lightest contact with the Hindu religious or caste structure, and in the Punjab the same was true for the various Jat clans that came to
form the bulk of the Muslim community.

A few points.

I thought the Baloch and Pathan were recent incursions (post Islamic or they have expanded considerably since) since it was pretty evident that the Indo-Aryans (Hindko) & Dravidians (Brahui) were prevalent there as the earlier settled population. There has been evidence of “Pathanisation” of Indian populations in the last 500 years (Swat is a good example).

I was also thinking not so much of Islamic invasions that affected the northwest but the invasions of the Jats; the Gujjars (Gujarat) and these tribes that settled slightly before Islam.

It’s quite funny I was just thinking about how a central region of the Vedic region (before the implementation of Iron tools) then turned into a “mleccha” region. The level of hetrodox worship in the northwest was highlighted that Sindhi Hindus used to syncretise with Sikhism.

TBH I wasn’t trying to imply that somehow Pakistan was native, indigenous or foreign. Its just very interesting that early homeland of the Aryans was the Indus (the original Hindustan etc.) and the early Vedas are set entirely there (apparently there is a Shiva worship site in Baluchistan). But then even from a religious point of view the focus shifts to the Ganges pretty quickly as the spiritual heart of the civilisation.

Perhaps taking into Razib’s point Iran was a more protected and developed region, served as a bastion of Zoroastrianism for longer much in the same way UP & Bihar did for Hinduism.

Another thought we use “Punjab” as a short hand but the Pakistani Punjab makes about as much sense as the British Punjab.

Just as the Indian Punjab got split into Himchal Pradesh, Punjab, and Haryana (the line being Sirhind) so does the Pakistani Punjab need a reorganisation.

The Majhi “prestige” dialect is spoken in the Lahore/Amritsar doab but the other languages of the Punjab (Jhangi, Potwari, Siraki, Hindko) apparently don’t cluster in with Punjab but with the older variant. Also Punjabi can be said to be the merging between Hindi/Haryanvi and the older Northwestern Lahnda language (in the same sense that Sikhism is a mixture of the two).

Also funnily enough Urdu-speaking UPites have done more to “Indianise” the northwest, through language (Hindustani) and ideology (Mughalism), and actually link it so deeply to the heart of the Hindi belt. It was notorious that local provincial politicians in Punjab, Sindh and Bengal were totally averse to the idea of Partition and a separate destiny because they were already so secure in their demography and politics.

As an economic unit the north west really was insubstantial until the Brits came in and made it the richest part of the subcontinent.

Disagree with title “Pakistanis are just like Indians”.

Pakistanis are Indians.

We only differ on two (fundamental) points; what is the definition of India and the political arrangements within India.

There was never any doubt that we were Indians but obviously the last 50yrs (and Bangladesh independence) have spurred on a distinct Pakistani identity (which is built on not-Indian). The boundaries of true India must have once reached deep inside Afghanistan now its arguable whether it is at Peshawar or Indus/Derajat; another century of sovereign independence and then it will be firmly at the Indo-Pak border, which would be rather sad.

I remember growing up in ISB that the only thing India meant for me was Mughal and when we were watching Aladdin a kid explaining to me how “our people” (the Arabs) actually pronounced the name. Anyhow I should send this gene chart to my Quresh friends (every other Punjabi is a Quresh I tell ya) and gently explain that most likely they are Khatri converts.

Finally Pakistanis are quite “arrogant”, sniffing down on other South Asians but complaining when they are sniffed down by Middle Easterners. Either way I think Pakistan is an interesting (and controversial) topic because we have a large diaspora, large nation, hitched to a growing superpower and our identity question is continually perplexing to one and all. Everyone claims to have an answer for it but still no one solution has been found.

I was thinking more about the Desi community fascination with Pak.

Anyway I think this whole “colour consciousness” thing is completely ridiculous but unfortunately so deeply ingrained in desi psyches. Conversely Dalit power in India is a positive sign because as Ambedkar says the case of caste discrimination is very overt and discussed constantly in Hindu society whereas in Muslim society “egalitarianism” (rather than myth of it) obscures any serious conversation and is answered by platitudes like Muslims pray together. I know it because I used to believe it but now its time for the South Asian “Ajlafs” to actually reassert the Indianess and indigenous of the Muslim community and knock some sense back. Its so much like Latin America not funny.

The funny thing is that then we complain about Western discrimination; the contradiction abounds. If “white is right” then erm who’s the whitest of them all, our ex-colonial conquerors of course.

Its a sign of the cultural immaturity of the “Rest” that they place such a premium on light skin. It reminds me so much of “Muslim defensiveness” whereby the West has to apologise but Muslims are not accountable for their actions. Brings to mind your earlier post, couple of weeks ago, about how the “ethnics” are not accountable for their actions.

@ Omar I was thinking this.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/irfan-husain-the-rise-of-mehran-man-740

The rise of Mehran man

“In Pakistan, the hierarchy on the roads reflects that of society. If you are poor, you use the overcrowded buses or a bicycle. Small shopkeepers, rural teachers and better-off farmers are likely to have a $1,500 Chinese or Japanese motorbike…. Then come the Mehran drivers. A rank above them, in air-conditioned Toyota Corolla saloons, are the small businessmen, smaller landlords, more senior army officers and bureaucrats. Finally, there are the luxury four-wheel drives of ‘feudal’ landlords, big businessmen, expats, drug dealers, generals, ministers and elite bureaucrats. The latter may be superior in status, power and wealth, but it is the Mehrans which, by dint of numbers, dominate the roads.”

Burke continues his dissection of the rising Pakistani middle class: “Mehran man is deeply proud of his country. A new identification with the ummah, or the global community of Muslims, paradoxically reinforces rather than degrades his nationalism. For him, Pakistan was founded as an Islamic state, not a state for South Asian Muslims. Mehran man is an ‘Islamo-nationalist’. His country possesses a nuclear bomb….”

As Pakistan’s social and psychological transformation from a South Asian to a Middle Eastern state continues on the track that was unwittingly set in 1947, there are huge implications for us and for the whole region. Unfortunately, not many policymakers are studying this trend. As usual, we will be caught by surprise when the metamorphosis is complete.

Correct me if I’m wrong but Onur when you use the word “Iranian” who do you mean?

Dasht-e-Lut and Dasht-e-Kavir are gene flow barriers so west of that Iranians aren’t “Aryan” (whatever that means) but a Middle East medley Iranianised in much the same way Anatolia was Turkified.

If we are talking about Iranian-“Aryan” genes then that would be found in Turan the original heartland so Pashtuns (not Pathans) and Tajiks would be good sources of that. There is a distinction between Pathans and Pashtuns; there’s also a dialectal shift that corroborates that.

Onur I feel your pronouncements are rather amusing because it requires definition. Pakistan is definitely desi (even “Iranian Pakistan” whatever that means) but then it also has very strong foreign cultural elements; it is a classic border region and subject to endless commentary.

Bangladesh is a classic border region and coincidentally both these regions were the most heavily Islamicised. There is no doubt to their desiness/Indianess but there is also a level of distinction, which marks them off and is reflected in the “artificial” border.

Let’s celebrate the differences and build on our similarities; I just don’t like imprecise terminology and blanket statements. Admittedly I used one when I said the Brits “reIndianised” the northwest but I meant that the economic transformation rendered by them converged the northwest to a more classical South Asian/Indian economic pattern and had a subsequent demographic shift.

Jinnah (Quaid e Azam) should have just accepted the name “India” when offered to him. Would have made things so much simpler 🙂

Yes I was referring to the distinction.

There is some but I haven’t been to Pak for 5yrs and counting.

Zach here.

Ancestrally Pathan through my grandfather, Dr. Latif (the eponymous founder of our family). He was a Kakazai, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakazai. He was the only survivor of his train to Pakistan.

Like most desis I have an interesting family history; I should write a book heh.

One could argue that the bastard child of Hindustani and Persian is Urdu; which is definitely a mother tongue of a certain part of the South Asian elites.

But then language in South Asia is a very fluid concept; all the Elite speak English as a matter of course. Bilingualism is the norm compared to Arabistan, Turkey and Iran; its reflected in language acquisition by desis and Middle Easterners.

The “Indian” accent is a bona fide English dialect because its been developing for the past two centuries. India and South Asia are/were extremely syncretic regions; they defy the rigid analysis that has often been imposed on it.

I’m trying to keep to the comment rules and not post irrelevant comments but Diaspar was a trigger and can’t help myself.

I have just spent the summer reading Arthur C. Clarke; I’m struggling on on the 9th book. Sand of Mars, this has taken a while to finish but this post might be the impetus to continue through the slog.

Btw on Japan; demographics are not destiny, not anymore. The West and developed world should just stick to 3 points to facilitate growth once more.

(1.) Free trade
(2) Free transfer of capital
(3.) Free movement of people

I just cannot grasp why there are internal barriers between Western and developed nations; makes no sense.

Either way after more than a decade in London; mass immigration is working and we are assimilating the new comers. The West and Japan may darken their hues somewhat (as the Italians, Persians and other Great Empires have arguably done over the past couple millennia) but its not a *decline* in any real way. The culture and the essence of the people linger on; have the Puritan and the Founding Fathers diminished in any way after majority American no longer descends from pre-1790 population?

Ps: Just read the other post on the America and Anglo revolution from way back in July http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/07/the-anglo-revolutions/. Weighty stuff

When I was in Karachi a couple of years ago I used to be really surprised to see shopkeepers having a picture of a European man in their shops. It was only after a couple of days I realized it was the Aga Khan.

Its one reason why the British forbid the Princely States of India from marrying Europeans; they had concluded that within a couple of generations all the Royal lines of India would have been European.

Hey its really interesting I read this in the Times today. It would be very interesting to see what the 2011 census reveals but frankly I was pleasantly surprised.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=459

In most non-White ethnic groups in Britain in 2004, the majority of people described their national identity as British, English, Scottish or Welsh. This included almost nine in ten people from a Mixed (88 per cent) or Black Caribbean (86 per cent) group, around eight in ten people from a Pakistani (83 per cent), Bangladeshi (82 per cent) or Other Black (83 per cent) group, and three quarters (75 per cent) of the Indian group.

@Sandgroper I love the insane build-up to Christmas in London.

The tube system also shuts down and everyone gets together.

Can’t imagine spending Christmas in a “hot” country; perhaps NY.

@Razib interesting post; for religions like Hinduism/Judaism, which were once proselytizing but now no more, they are able to “retain” their atheists. Once Christianity/Islam are in retreat from a more aggressive and domineering ideology then perhaps they’ll evolve mechanisms to “retain” their atheists somehow. Is Hinduism to India/South Asia what Islam is to the Arabs?

I mean the rise of the cultural “Catholic/Christian” in Europe is perhaps a good example, where now Christianity in hyper-secularized circles is a heritage/legacy passed down rather than a religious practice. I know quite a few atheist/agnostic English people who view the CoE as a national treasure and Christianity a liberal balm against homegrown extremism.

Anecdotally In Pakistan the Christian converts draw from the Hindu untouchable community.

However in the past few generations the Christians have taken to education in such a way that the urban population is rapidly making great strides.

I personally think that thankfully our communities haven't been nearly as endogamous as they like to think and that South Asia is much much more mixed than not.

"Someone should check what percentage of the people who call themselves Mohammad's descendants actually descend from a single male-line ancestor who lived in his time period. This is definitely doable with current technology. I'd imagine that the incentive to falsely claim descent from Mohammad would have been huge over the centuries."

It is odd that they've tested Genghis Khan's descendants but not yet the Holy Prophets.

Now that would be interesting, yet controversial, to test Sayyids from Morocco to Indonesia and check their lineage.

But then again that's going to be devastating to many to rewrite their narrative but then again the truth should never be repressed, whatever the reason.

I shared some thoughts on Christmas in my annual Christmas message and how it could serve to unite communities in Britain. http://latif.blogspot.com/2010/12/zachary-latifs-2010-christmas-message.html

Otherwise scheduled posting sounds cool (liked the shout-out) knew a friend who did scheduled posting on Twitter but for some reason I’ve never really embraced tech to that level; I should probably.

Now back to Sepia lol.

Thanks for the kind comments. I like the League of odd-brownz, with you as its Rabbi-Pope. You’ve even taken to deciding who is kosher or not. I look forward to Brown Pundits and envision it as congregation of the league.

I was reflecting on the word Brown though; it doesn’t only mean Desi brown but Latin Brown too.

That might actually be more relevant to an American audience because both the US and UK are browning albeit differently.

http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/01/18/brown-in-the-islands/

@Ian I repasted comment #3 to the Brown Pundits since I’ve always been curious about the exotic Indo-Diaspora; Africa, Oceania and Latam. Particularly the sort of “personal ancedotes”, the unspoken rules of the society which outsiders are never really privy to.

All the best to Harrapa ancestry project.

Interesting post; commenting because I saw you linked to “Transparent Society”, which seems to have been written by David Brin. David Brin & The Uplift Trilogy rocks!

I posted once didn’t come through.

Both links interesting; did not know about the Madrassa, have you written on that experience?

I got a phone upgrade today and am just marvelling in how even more interconnected I am.

I’ll be online constantly but I’ve realised the more “virtual” we get, the more we value “real-life” face to face interactions.