Aryan Invasion Theory

Indeed. If we go farther back in time, then there is evidence to show that the earliest inhabitants of India were the Adivasis or tribals that now live in the forests and jungles. Both the Dravidians and Aryans came after them. But even the Adivasis were not always native to India. The most widely accepted theory of human evolution states that all humans evolved in Africa, and then left the continent in waves on to other regions of the world.

In this process of human migration, the Adivasis were the first to settle in India, while the Aryans were merely the last wave.

Unlike the Aryan migration however, the Dravidian migration to India is covered in mystery, because the language of the Indus Valley civilization has to date not been deciphered. In the absence of any lingustic, archeological or ethnological data of the Indus Valley civilization, the Dravidian migrations have been lost in the mists of time.

Are the Pakistan aryan?

^^Pakistanis are no different than North Indians. India and Pakistan were one country before 1947. The state of Punjab was divided in two during partition-Pakistani Punjab and Indian Punjab. Most Pakistanis are Punjabis and are culturally and ethnically identical to North Indians. .

Thank you! I'm sorry for my little knowledge about south Asia

Pakistanis are not exactly the same people as north Indians . The majority of Pak punjabis ,though LINGUISTICALLY Indo-aryan,are racially & ethnically of Afghan, Persian and Turkish descent. The first muslims who invade India were of Turkish origin. They established the sultanate in Delhi before Mughals from central asia overthrew them
North Indian Hindus, particularly uppercaste, are of Indo-Aryan origin . Though there are are some muslims in Pak who are of aryan descent but converted to islam a long time ago.

Says who? Can you mention any genetic studies done on Pakistani punjabis to show how they are different from Indian punjabis? Let me remind you, the 1947 partition was done based on religion, not on genetic or racial lines. There are no differences in physical characteristics between Indian Punjabis/Harayanvis/Himachal residents and Pakistani Punjabis.

You're confusing two things here. Religion and genetics. As you yourself point out, the capitals of all the Muslim kingdoms were in Delhi, not in Lahore or Karachi or Islamabad. So Delhiites should have the maximum percentage of foreign genetic material rather than a Lahori or some other Pakistani. Muslim or not is irrelevent, since there is no genetic difference between the Muslims and Hindus of Delhi.

You cannot differentiate between Afghan or Persian on one hand and Aryan on the other. Afghan and Persian are nationalities, Aryan is a term that describes a particular race/ethnicity of people. Both Afghans and Persians are also of Aryan origin, the Persians (Iranians) more so. Most North Indians have mixed ancestry, both Aryan and Dravidian, regardless of caste. However, upper castes have a higher percentage of Aryan ancestry than they do Dravidian ancestry. As we move northwest, the percentage of Dravidian ancestry decreases, but not so rapidly that on one side of an arbitrarily drawn line in 1947 (India), everyone is Dravidian but on the other side of the line, everyone is of Aryan descent.

Of course, here I am speaking about the Pakistani punjabis, not the Pathan or Baloch who might indeed have much less or even zero Dravidian genetic ancestry.

Not true at all. Pakistani Punjab has the same ethnic groups as Indian Punjab; they include, Jatts, Tarkhans, Khatris, Rajputs, Brahmins (called Punjabi Sheikhs), Janjuas, you name it. Only difference is a very small minority who claim descendants from arabs (called the Sheikhs, different from Punjabi Sheikhs), and the ones who claim descendance from the Afghanis.. who are called Duranis.. but they form a very small percentage..

If Vedic culture is assumed to be off shoot of IVC then why the scripts are so different. Where are the intermediate scripts and things like Rosatta Stone. As the language evolved or changed there should have been evidence showing transition. Also vedic texts are very warlike, how come IVC does not unearth any major cache of weapons? Is it possible that decimation of IVC happened so extensively that Aryan migration was basically unopposed. Aryans may have come from Central Asia but developed their culture in India. They could have created vedas using the stories of remanents of IVC

What about Sindhis? 0_0

I agree that pak punjabis have a lot of similarities with Indian punjabis . Yes there are many who belong to the same castes that you mention. But obviously Pathans or pashtuns , hazaras ,Balochis & chitralis are not the same as Indians.
Who were Indo-aryans. They were people who originally arrived in India in pre-vedic times,sometime in the second millenium BC.Whereas many muslims today in the northwestern region of south Asia are descended from Turkic & central Asian ancestors. The first muslim rulers of India were of Turkic origin _ Qutb-ud-din-aibak ,the Khiljis.Later invaders were of central asian or of Mongol origin. SO HOW CAN THESE PEOPLE OF TURKIC OR CENTRAL ASIAN ORIGIN WHO ARRIVED IN MEDIEVAL TIMES BE THE SAME AS THE INDO_ARYAN ORIGIN HINDUS OF INDIA.

Besides the Afghans are too mixed up to be called ARYAN. Afghanistan was invaded by every central Asian group known in history including Mongols, and many of these people settled down in Afghanistan.And there are many people of afghan descent in Pakistan.
Just because a large number of Pak punjabis belong to the same castes as Hindus in north India ,one cannot say that ALL OF THEM are the same people.
The castes mentioned by you may share the same gene pool but not all pakistanis.

You mentioned Pakistan Punjab, hence I gave you the demographics of Pakistani Punjab. The Pathans, Hazaras, Balochis & chitralis are NOT Punjabis. Pathans, I don't know their origins; Hazaras are the direct decendants of the mongols, Balochis are again a unique linguistic group, they can be called closer to Iranians, yet at the same time they are heavily mixed with Punjabis, especially Seraiki people; but despite their ethnic link, oddly enough brahi is considered as a Dravidian language by linguists; Chitralis are a dardic people, related to people such as the Koshuri people of Indian Kashmir; and ironically a large number like the Kalash tribe remain polytheists. And note, I did not say that all of them are the same people, I said a very small percent are decendants of arab traders or preachers, but not the vast majority of the country. All the people in the region were converted to Islam, there was never any mass migration of people to the region. Infact, a very small number of people in northern areas still haven't accepted Islam and remain polytheists, such as the Kalash tribe in Chitral. And than there were the Nuristanis (previously called Kafirstanis) in Afghanistan, who remained polytheists until 1895 when they were forcefully converted to Islam by the then Amir of Afghanistam, Abdur Rahman Khan. So no, all these people are indigenous people, who later converted to Islam, the vast majority were not Muslim muhajirs from the Middle East.

^^ That is true. Most people have indigenous Hindu roots. Many of them just deny that and claim invader roots.

I read a Pakistani writer who said there are more Quraishis in Pakistan than in Arabia. There is a very large number of people claiming Arab, Bukharan (Uzbek), Persian, Turk roots etc. In fact given that the native roots are considered a handcap (Azlaf vs. the invader Ashraf), there are tangible benefits in claiming invader roots.

For example, Shariff, Musharraf and so many of top politicians are Arab origin. Same would be the case for much of the elites.

Every Tom, D1ck and Harry on both sides of the border claims to be a Syed. Usually people in the past who have adopted false names, just to climb up the, you guessed it, caste ladder. Syeds, are the top dogs among muslim caste hierarchy followed by the Sheiks. Hence, a lot of family name manipulation went on and today you will see Syeds and Sheiks in every nook and corner.

Over half the population of Pakistani Punjab is made up of Rajputs, Arains, Gujjars and Jatts. These are indigenous Indian castes/tribes.

It seems they have a certain process to validate the genuine "Syeds", basically a document is published that contains all the Syeds in the country that is supposed to be vetted to ensure no one can fake it.