Average Heights of Indians for different states

Julian

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
145
Likes
29
We already have olive/light brown skin, which is considered desirable by most Indians so we don't care about skin colour. The communities where dark skin dominates is also where colourism is most ubiquitous. That is the sad part. There is much more to attractiveness than skin colour.
Any explaination how Kerala comes ahead of Rajasthan in male height? This study is completely stupid, reality seen by eyes can not be denied by throwing some stats which are basically tissues of falsehood.
 

PredictablyMalicious

Punjabi
Banned
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
1,715
Likes
648
Any explaination how Kerala comes ahead of Rajasthan in male height? This study is completely stupid, reality seen by eyes can not be denied by throwing some stats which are basically tissues of falsehood.
Kerala is more developed than Rajasthan. The latter is one of the most backward states in India (BIMARU) and has poor health indicators (high malnutrition). If environment wasn't a factor, I would expect Rajasthanis to be near the top.
 

Julian

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
145
Likes
29
Kerala is more developed than Rajasthan. The latter is one of the most backward states in India (BIMARU) and has poor health indicators (high malnutrition). If environment wasn't a factor, I would expect Rajasthanis to be near the top.
Have you seen both Rajasthanis and Keralites? Man , dalits who are supposed to be poorest like Meghwals are way taller than average Keralites.
BTW, high malnutrition is there in nations like Uganda too but they beat Japan and Hongkong by a good margin. No one who has seen people of Barmer9 one of poorest districts) can say that they look smaller than normal guys from Kochi.
 

PredictablyMalicious

Punjabi
Banned
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
1,715
Likes
648
Have you seen both Rajasthanis and Keralites? Man , dalits who are supposed to be poorest like Meghwals are way taller than average Keralites.
BTW, high malnutrition is there in nations like Uganda too but they beat Japan and Hongkong by a good margin. No one who has seen people of Barmer9 one of poorest districts) can say that they look smaller than normal guys from Kochi.
Let's be realistic. Indians as a whole are not very tall. A comparison with Sub Saharan Africans is totally unwarranted. Even the tallest Indians (NW India) are not tall when compared to their European counterparts. THe main problems hindering Indian height is chronic malnutrition. Dietary lifestyles in India combined with high poverty ensure that Indians remain short when compared to their West Asian neighbours. The genetic potential (at least for NW India) is probably about 5'8"-5'9"
 

Julian

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
145
Likes
29
Let's be realistic. Indians as a whole are not very tall. A comparison with Sub Saharan Africans is totally unwarranted. Even the tallest Indians (NW India) are not tall when compared to their European counterparts. THe main problems hindering Indian height is chronic malnutrition. Dietary lifestyles in India combined with high poverty ensure that Indians remain short when compared to their West Asian neighbours. The genetic potential (at least for NW India) is probably about 5'8"-5'9"
Even with poor nutrition, people of Pakhtun belt or Yemen are taller than richer Gujratis of US. Anyone can see this, however I agree that Indians are not very tall and in my view Indian girls are shorter than East Asians. Only some SE people like Khmers or Malys are shorter than us as a whole and Indians will not be able to match West Asian physique, different genes are what frame all this. West Asians are put in white category by US departments when it comes to declaring race in your column.
 

PredictablyMalicious

Punjabi
Banned
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
1,715
Likes
648
Even with poor nutrition, people of Pakhtun belt or Yemen are taller than richer Gujratis of US. Anyone can see this, however I agree that Indians are not very tall and in my view Indian girls are shorter than East Asians. Only some SE people like Khmers or Malys are shorter than us as a whole and Indians will not be able to match West Asian physique, different genes are what frame all this. West Asians are put in white category by US departments when it comes to declaring race in your column.
Yea and the US government is the authority on physical anthropology right? :lol:
Anyways I don't want to talk about this any longer.
 

Julian

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
145
Likes
29
Yea and the US government is the authority on physical anthropology right? :lol:
Anyways I don't want to talk about this any longer.
US is not authority but what I said is right, there is a column for whites which include Arabs and Berbers as well. Indians are put in Asian category even when they are not closer to East or South East Asian mongoloids at all.
 

angeldude13

Lestat De Lioncourt
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
2,499
Likes
3,999
Country flag
We already have olive/light brown skin, which is considered desirable by most Indians so we don't care about skin colour. The communities where dark skin dominates is also where colourism is most ubiquitous. That is the sad part. There is much more to attractiveness than skin colour.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Chimaji Appa

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
243
Likes
634
That was what I said, Kashmiris are tall but do not have muscular body,they have been notable for being weak and are pleasure seeking.South Indians are quite militaristic and before British, every village had well trained soldiers. There are stories of south Indian mothers wishing to cut their breasts if it was reported that their sons ran away from battlefield.( What a great martial culture)
Kashmiris, Gujratis and Bengalis are not at all militaristic.
You are right about Keralites, Arabs settled among them, intermarried( Keralites were always free of Hindu restrictions) with them and so many of them began to be called "Mappilah" which is Tamil Malyalam term for son in laws.Today, muslims are called moplahs.
Sri Lankans also have semitic blood in them as they too mixed with Arab traders.
"Bengalis aren't a militaristic people" is probably one of the funniest things I have heard and is a typical example of false-regional streotypes. The only ruler in North India who could actually challenge Harsha was a bengali. Bengalis served in the armies of the Palas, Guptas, EIC, etc... Bengal has produced several powerful empires like the Palas and Sassanka, which is really impressive. Gour Govind Singh of Bengal actually humiliated the Turks twice through successful guerrilla tactics and Raja Ganesha overthrew the Bengali Sultanate and Pratapidtya gave a very tough fight to Akbar. The Bengal Sultanate was only muslim by name as native Bengalis almost dominated the entire army, and this bengali army repulsed Firuz Shah Tuglaq and his Turko-Afghan army. The Bengalis also consituted for a decent percentage of the army that subdued the Marathas, Sikhs, Nepalis, and even conquered all of India. Pray tell what is so poor about their military history? They may not be on par with Rajasthan or Tamil Nadu, but they were still superior to regions like Punjab.

Kashmiris under Lalitaditya humbled the Arab Caliphates, repulsed the Tibetans, and also may have repulsed an invasion of Yashovarman of Kannauj. The Kashmiris also repelled 2 of Mahmud of Ghaznis sieges. Kashmir was actually never conquered by the Muslims, but the throne was usurped by a coupde etat.

Gujaratis under Mulraja 2 destroyed Ghoris army in 1178 and forced Qutubudin Aibak to retreat from their capital. Jayabhata of the Lata Gurjaras also defeated the Arabs. The Vaghelas repulsed an invasion of Balban in the 1280s and one of illtutmish's generals, and forced illtutmish to retreat from the Guhilots territory.
 

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
815
Likes
884
Country flag
Just Mary some Vikings and we would be back to 6 feet 😂

Our reduced heights are probably due to lack of nutrition at birth and over the millennium has made it a genetic 🤔 guess not.
 

Chimaji Appa

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
243
Likes
634
Just Mary some Vikings and we would be back to 6 feet 😂

Our reduced heights are probably due to lack of nutrition at birth and over the millennium has made it a genetic 🤔 guess not.
Yes. Indians used to be much taller, and this was observed by everyone from Alexander to the Early british explorers. Just go read about how many famines happened in the Raj Era lol.
 

Chimaji Appa

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
243
Likes
634
th
Yes. Himachalis live in mountainous region so that explains their short height. Jammu is in plains. Only Upper Jammu region is mountainous and that region is not densely populated. Most Dogras live in plains. Kashmiris live in Kashmir valley and valleys are flat like plains. That's why Dogras and kashmiris are taller than himachalis.
Then can you please explain me why my entire patrilineal line has been at least 5 foot 10?
 

Kchontha

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2017
Messages
784
Likes
1,208
Country flag
We need tall and athletic one rather than just a lanky one. North Westerners have good heights but hardly athleticism barring some exceptions. North easterners is of average height and muscular.
 

Tibarn

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jul 12, 2017
Messages
431
Likes
1,079
Country flag
Is the data for Europe based on the tribals?
All data is based on Mesolithic populations of India/W.Europe/E.Europe

It's the population between the hunter-gatherers and the full-fledged agriculturalists.

The link I posted has the whole paper if you want to read it.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top