Deccaner

@thealiwarsi @grok There was a migration eastward into mainland India after the core phase too @grok

@thealiwarsi There are more ivc sites in India and the oldest one is in India @grok

Pakistan and Indus Valley Civilisation are ONE. No amount of India-sponsored revisionism will change the geographical fact that Indus flows through Pakistan. The civilisation built around it lives and thrives in Pakistan. It never stopped existing. Lahore, Karachi, Multan, Peshawar are heirs to Harappa and Mohenjodaro. No gora gets to decide what IVC is. The river, the mountains, the plains decide it. And the people living in them.

@ajeeboghareeb0 @callmeemuffin @grok Of course, no one can gate keep use of flowers but that shouldn't stop us from talking about the culture of origin, does Gajra have roots in Hinduism / India?

@callmeemuffin Phool tak to religious bana diye inho..kapre to door ki baat hai

OMG ANOTHER SLAYYYY 🤌🇵🇰

@ajeeboghareeb0 @callmeemuffin I know you don't have access to Grok so let me do it for you. @grok does Saree originate in Hinduism / India?

@callmeemuffin Nothing better than worshiping your true Hindu roots of Ancient India. I am very happy to see your return to Hinduism 🕉️ Spread the word that ghar wapsi is imminent

@Saatvata @raghman36 @tishasaroyan What you have said, does not need arrival of anyone. It can happen without any genetic input. Because languages are not tied to DNA. Just because there is DNA input around the same time doesn't mean they brought the languages. How do people fall for this?

Yes. When the original Proto-Indo-Aryans arrived in India, they had clusters like gʰẓ, bʰz, and so on. While their Vedic Brahmin descendants simplified gʰẓ to kṣ, bʰz to ps, etc., other Indo-Aryan groups retained pronunciations like gẓ, bz, etc. The Prakrits ultimately descend from these latter dialects.

First agglutinative languages are not hard to converse in; Japanese and Tamil are agglutinative. Secondly, more importantly, this is why Ruchika again displays her ignorance. Vedic Sanskrit isn't mostly agglutinative; it has features of agglutinative, but it is mostly an inflective language. Almost all Indo-European languages are primarily inflective languages, and some have agglutinative features. Thirdly, claims about Brahmins gate keeping sanskrit are not true; they did gatekeep the Vedas. Claims she makes claims without evidence Fourthly, Sanskrit was spoken by common people. It is well understood by most scholars who study Vedic Sanskrit that it was a spoken language, but later became liturgical. Like any language, over centuries and places, Vedic Sanskrit had variants and changed, some even becoming the Prakrits we now know. Classical Sanskrit was probably not spoken in any real way by most people, but here is the thing. Panini himself in the Ashtadhyayi speaks about Bhasa and Chandas. Bhasa as he uses it refers to common spoken Sanskrit, while Chandas refers to Vedic Sanskrit. This type of spoken Sanskrit continued for a few centuries after Panini but eventually was over taken by Prakrits. Again, Sanskritists and Indologists know this, refer to Dr. Madhav Deshpande for a good source, which Ruchika seems not know or, in her arrogance, thinks she knows better. Latin goes through a similar journey, too. @Saatvata @maa_bhaishiiH @avzaagzonunaada

@sumguy265 @bhaarat_premi @Saatvata @raghman36 @tishasaroyan This is not true, spend some time reading about what the actual evidence is. I am talking about hard-facts that cannot be disputed. 90% is made up narrative

@bhaarat_premi @Saatvata @raghman36 @tishasaroyan Stop the cope bro, this stopped being controversial outside India decades ago, and the theory has only been strengthened by new evidence since.

@Saatvata @raghman36 @tishasaroyan There is really no evidence that Steppe is Proto-Indo-Aryan. Love following your work, but I am shocked that you follow the "mainstream consensus" of this loosely put together narrative of the Steppe Aryan crap

@Zig4na @DarpanAurDwar @Ahmedpak378456 @Grok Is Bhirrana, the oldest Sindu-Sarswati (IVC) site in India? Is Rakhigarhi, the largest one in India?

@DarpanAurDwar @Ahmedpak378456 NO!

Pakistan has a 9,000-year-old soul. Which absorbed the cultures of many empires and dynasties, from Alexander’s Greeks and Cyrus’s Persians to the Mughals. Rich and layered history 🤍 #AncientPakistan

@Form_45 @MonaADhar You are right that's why it was called East Pakistan Company, and Megasthenes wrote Pakica not Indica. By your logic, since there is no mention of Pakistan in medieval and ancient times it's not even a real country

@MonaADhar India's foundation day is 15th August 1947 😂

Why is Anushka Sharma wearing Pakistani attire instead of a Saree (which Indians claim as their own, but isn't) or Western clothing? It’s because the grace of this look is just on another level. ✨🇵🇰

Pakistan is named after nothing so it doesn't exist? Modern day India / Bharat is named after it's ancient name just because you took some territory (you were given some territory) changes nothing. Show me a reference to Pakistan by the Greeks or Persians since the name is made up the country made up by your logic

@Deccaner @ChiffonSaree Long before the Greeks called it India, it was called Sindh. Modern-day India was named after a region that is now in Pakistan. Stealing name doesn’t rewrite history. Pakistan sits on the basin of the Indus Valley, & it is its sole claimant. We will decide what it will be called

Two ancient Pakistani women from Gandhara. Circa: 101 CE

Right, it was the East Pakistan Company and Dutch East Pakistan Company. How could we forget? Megasthenes wrote Pakica not Indica, he was a Pakiologist. The Greeks knew it as the land east of Indus, Pakos they called it We call those Ancient Italians, the Turks are known as Ancient Greeks not Turkish You are the one renaming everything, if you want to claim heritage call it what it was Ancient India. It was Ancient Rome not Ancient Italy. It was Constantinople, not Istanbul. At least the turks and italians call their ancestors by the name they preferred. None of your ancestors would want to be called Pakistanis since no such a thing existed.

@ChiffonSaree There was no such thing as India before 1947. Current country of India is named after a river which is in Pakistan. Stealing the name doesn’t rewrite history.

To drive my point further, we don't call ancient Roman's "Italians". The identity changed. Ancient India continued into today's India. Of course, the people of Pakistan were part of ancient India but they abandoned that identity culturally long time ago and they don't have exclusive genetic claim either On top of this, we don't know what was Panini's genetic identity just like we have people living in the south who are northern Indians or vice-versa so ridiculous post by OP.

No, it's not ridiculous. Panini and Pingala belong to the ancient Vedic/Sanskrit intellectual tradition of the Indian subcontinent (Gandhara region, Taxila), long before modern India-Pakistan borders existed in 1947. "Indian civilization" in this context refers to that shared pre-partition heritage, preserved and studied across India today—including Tamil Nadu, which has deep historical ties to Sanskrit scholarship and pan-Indian culture. Regional pride doesn't erase the broader civilizational continuum.

"Indian civilisation"? Jaishankar is back at stealing ancient Pakistan’s history. Panini and his brother Pingala were both born in modern-day Punjab & KP provinces of Pakistan. The Chandra Sutra - foundational to the binary system that the digital world runs on - was conceived and enriched at Taxashila University in Taxila, Pakistan. There was nothing "Indian" about it - let alone the "Indian nation-state". This was the Gandhara civilization, now in Pakistan. And as someone from the vicinity of Gandhara, I find it insulting that Jaishankar - hailing from thousands of miles away in Tamil Nadu - shamelessly kangs onto my land’s achievements. Tamil Nadu is as distant from Taxila as Russia. Jaishankar's baseless kanging is as absurd as I kanging onto Russian history would be.

@RishiKe17188838 @vajrayudha11 Because if you don't tell your story, someone else will do it for you

@vajrayudha11 Why are you even replying to this shit we indians know who we are we are proud of our history our culture why should we even bother about what this bhikari think I mean why we even give them attention they do for attention is other thing but indian name is enough for us

Who named that river as Sindhu? Pakis?

"Hindus didn't bring monsoon so all Hindu traditions that celebrate monsoon are not Hindu"? What's so hard about acknowledging that Hinduism started all these traditions? You can invent completely new way of celebrating harvest/monsoon/wahtever if you don't want to acknowledge the origin

Yes, of course. Pakistanis must immediately change the course of the monsoon, stop sarson and gandum harvesting, speaking Punjabi, singing folk songs or marking events to celebrate the seasons because Nature in the subcontinent was invented by Hindus and as soon as anyone turns Muslim their memory and realities must automatically get wiped and reprogrammed

It’s not an aarti ritual. They’re bringing in the mehndi that is brought in with diyas. Maayoon, mehndi, dholak, ghori charhna, ubtan/haldi/mehndi lagaana, vail dena, and a lot else are all part of our syncretic culture. 60% of Pakistan is Punjabi. These are Punjabi traditions. There’s zero ‘identity crisis’ around them for most people.

@noemonas You are saying it's Indo-Iranian? Not exactly Sanskrit? Because Mittani has other Sanskrit-sounding inscriptions?

@sabizak It's not about celebrating it's about appropriating it and NOT acknowledging these traditions originate in Hinduism

The funny part is Indians who hate Pakistan hate it for being anti-Hindu, anti-India, wannabe Arab, fixated on Islam alone etc., but when they see Pakistanis carrying on their old regional/syncretic Indian traditions, being easy in their greater Indian skin, enjoying themselves in their indigenous ways, that also triggers them. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

You are really going to sit here and say these don't originate in Hinduism? Indians are pissed because the origin is not acknowledged, especially by a country that's not secular and is literally an Islamic republic that has been as anti Hindu as it gets. @grok Has Hindu population grown in Pakistan since independence? What about the number of temples?

@noemonas @b0red_historian x.com/yajnadevam/sta…

You didn't use "my logic", you tried a straw, but unsuccesfully. Indian(not persian, not greek, not aramaic, not alien) literature propagation via inscriptions and documents is attested only after Alexander in the Indian language with an Indian script. It is not unlikely the script was developed precisely to compete with the Greek letter machine that one already knows it saturated the whole area via coins, inscriptions, libraries, schools, sport centers, temples with inscriptions, theatres with admission rules, the whole nine yards. Persian Aramaic did not refer to Indians and was not written by Indians. In case it were not clear to you already. This is a material fact.

PIE refers to a million different things. I will try to define the nuance below: 1) A Theory that Indo-European languages are related. Cool, fact, easily confirmed, they are indeed. How much, it varies a lot. 2) A Theory that all these people descend from one single tribe/family. Not confirmed, not a fact, a wishful thinking that sounds good to laymen but which has zero scientific credibility. 3) A Theory that claims that the imaginary proto-group had a fixed set of roots which some modern descendants kept and some varied. Instead of examining the languages themselves and reconstructing the proto-language(by comparing the language families), the field has commited several errors: a) It copied sanskrit's 2000 roots and baptised them 'proto-indo-European', it then tried to calibrate everyone else by inventing sound changes away it theorised the others underwent to veer away from the sanskrit as the proto-language because early Indo-Europeanists were very impressed by yoga and allured by India's presumed antiquity. This has several problems for their model. Sanskrit bh, dh,gh, do not exist outside South Asia. PIE methodology says that for something to be considered PROTO, it needs to be witnessed by 2 big brances, the eastern Indo-Iranian branch and the western, Helleno-Latin-Germanic super trees. Almost all the roots they call Proto use aspirated bh/dh/gh, which are only found in South Asian languages including Dravidian(not-IE) and Munda(not-IE) and nowhehere to be found outside South-Asia, not in Iranic, nor Germanic, nor Italic, nor Hellenic. So the assumption is that the proto-people sounded like South-Indians and we all departed away from that and there is no evidence for this claim other than a religious belief that sanskrit(first attested in the 11thAD) came first. Which means that all the supposed proto-roots of PIE are fake(by admission of their own linguistic leaders as you will see below) and do not satisfy any criteria for the reconstructionist methodology, not even their own. b) Because it copied sanskrit without actually checking with the other branches, it then tried to reconstruct the other living branches to fit sanskrit, so instead of using actual Greek, it reconstructed a new fake version of "Greek" to match the sanskrit evidence. It did the same with Latin, Phrygian, Tocharian, Hittite and possibly more. c) As this massive problem is internally well-known in PIE academia, several scholars have attempted to correct this problem, like Ivanov because as it stands all the PIE roots are basically fake. d) Giants of the linguistic field laugh at these reconstructed PIE roots and have said that only 1% of them is actually confirmed by cross-branch evaluation. If you don't believe me just read what they had to say themselves: I) "Only 1 per cent of the reconstructed lexicon is based on a cognate from all twelve major language groups" ---J. P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (1997), p. 48, and The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (2006) II) Donald Ringe, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania, holder of the chair in historical linguistics, author of the standard recent treatment From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (2006, 2nd ed. 2017). In published interview (transcribed at opoudjis.net, widely circulated since c. 2003): "Pokorny is regarded as disgracefully lax by indoeuropeanists, terrible in fact, bad by our standards." Asked about the ~2,000 Pokorny entries: "Only a tiny fraction are [core], maybe only 10%" And on the reliability of even that "core": "I think that the core is so small that it could be the result of chance." III) In published academic writing (cited in PMC5167730, Mikulić et al. 2017): "Pokorny is badly out of date; moreover it errors extravagantly on the side of inclusion, listing every word that might conceivably reflect a PIE lexeme." ----------------------- Greek exhibits even bigger problems for the reconstructed model, and so it had to be "reconstructed"(re-imagined) as a language from exospace just so it can fit sanskrit. Even if we accept "reconstructed Greek" as valid for the purposes of this exercise, Greek still presents even bigger problems for the sanskrit because the Greek lexicon contains HUGE amount of words that are not I-E, nor Semitic, nor anything found in any living language. This is what indo-Europeanists call the "Greek pre-IE substratum", and dismiss it as a proto-Pelasgian vocabulary that Greek maintains fossilised before the Indo-europeans came in the Aegean. The problem is that this vocabulary is massive, it represents all the placenames(Athens, Thebes, Argos, Mycene, Nisyros), metallurgical names(gold, silver, tin, copper, iron), God names(Zagreus, Persephone, Athena, Apollo, Hephaistus, Hermes,Afroditi, Hera, Poseidon) and sea-names(thallassa, als, nisos, naus, etc) and botanical names(yakinthos, olive, wine, etcetera) which forms the vast majority of the structural Greek vocabulary. Not all vocab is made equal and while abstract words like 'philosophia' are cool they are not structural to a language, they are no use if you cannot name the crops, tools, ships and places you live in. Another problem for the model is that these non-IE words are still productive internally in Greek, not fossils from a time bygone. This is extremely problematic for the reconstruction as it stands. PIE reconstructionists having messed up the PROTO language beyond belief, they then moved to create a "unified mythology" about a people for which we have no writing, no inscription and no actual myth. So they grabbed a few Greek myths tried to pair them with some Germanic ones that came 2000 years later and then re-serve them as "potential PIE myths" with several disclaimers attached. Again the problem is that Greek myths map into Egyptian myths which are not I-E instead of Germanic ones. But the field in generally is more cautious about this and accepts that it is just fantastic wishful thinking. Greek as a language also exhibits "semitic" mechanics when it comes to word creation by alternating vowels in a consonantal skeleton. Greek is the only I-E language capable of having an I-E productive system through compounding and cases as well as a Semitic consonantal skeleton system which explains why Greek is the most productive language globally as it uses 2 separate methods to produce new words, unlike any other.