What went wrong bros?

Copper, silver and tin

Isn't this implying the poos made the IVC?

those white vedics were nomads my guy, and would've penetrated much deeper into India before settling down and stratifying.

> confusing a geographic term with an ethnicity

its 2017 brah, not 1917

So funny I forgot to laugh

Isn't it strange how when we Dravidians inhabited all of India and Pakistan we created flourishing societies but as soon as you milk drinking horsehumpers arrived everything was burned to the ground and replaced by barbarians in huts burning their wives and fighting over livestock?

Isn't it funny how Northern India is the most poor, illiterate, violent, backwards, superstitious, and primitive part of the country?

Isn't it funny how it's only you fuckers who can't poo in loo?

Isn't it funny how we turned your primitive thunder worship into a complex and noble faith?

Get out of here you autistic hijra

Yeah because the Indo-Aryans were the only people to invade and fuck up northern India

>Actually using current year argument in the current year

P.A.K.I.stan happened

Neolithic Indus population =/= Contemporary/Mesolithic Indian population

The Indus Valley Civilization was composed of Caucasoids from the Middle East, this is the reason why it's called the Indus Civilization and not some poo civilization in south India, because curryniggers are too stupid to be able to found any civilization on their own. There's a reason why Dravidian and Harappan territory does not interlap.

>The earliest settlement at Mehrgarh, a site located in the Balochistan province next to Afghanistan, in the northeast corner of the 495-acre (2.00 km2) site was a small farming village which was inhabited from circa 6500 BCE. It is one of the earliest sites with evidence of farming and herding in South Asia.
>The most important conclusion of Kennedy's study is that the Harappan population was not derived from peninsular India
>Finally, and significantly, this study indirectly rejected a “Dravidian” authorship of the Indus civilization, since it noted, “Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers rather than a source with proximity to the Indus....”
>The skeletal and dental study made it very clear that the Harappan population was not derived from peninsular India.

I have no idea why poo's are so desperate to steal the IVC and claim it was them, when 99% of the Harappan territory was in Pakistan. It must be the same way Indians want the Aryans to be Indian, they also want a civilization in Pakistan to be Indian.

>implying pakis aren't shitskins

the original geographically favourable features that build a civilisation often becomes the splitting point when one side outweighs the other from hitting another naturally expansive sustainable area of habitation & cultivatural civilisation. Grow and split, Grow and divide, like a stem cell, just a big hyper complex organism.

There's Dravidians in Pakistan

This is a pretty exaggerated but you're right in the sense that South India today is the "True India", especially when it comes to Hinduism

>be deavidian
>built advanced civilization with sewers, toilets and public baths
>invent writing indipendendly
>sail as far west as Mesopotamia and Arabia to trade, sail east to Australia
>a metod Strikes and destroys your main city
>famine
>droughts
>Northen barbarian sheperds invade and destroy your civilization completely
>set it back a thousands years at least
>4000 years later They call you an "Australoid subhuman"

>Shortugal

Where's Talltugal?

It clearly says Shortugai, but whatever.

>biggest IVC site is in haryana.
>pakis claim themselves to be white aryans and harappans.
wew.

>sail east to Australia
proof? I know there's evidence of trade with Sumer but Australia sounds a little farfetched

its the older populations before civilisation existed.

basically dravidians are related to abos and managed to create a pretty good civilization.

I'm talking about Indus civilization people migrating to Australia around 2100 b, so at the time their civ was at its apex:

harappa.com/blog/indus-peoples-australia-2200-bce

economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21569688-genetic-evidence-suggests-four-millennia-ago-group-adventurous-indians

>It's a delusional paki episode

>this is the reason why it's called the Indus Civilization

hey, at least the paki is trying to learn history instead of looking for camel sex.

Indira gandhi should have taken kashmir in the shimla accords.

>butthurt curryniggers
>so retarded cant even think of an argument
Like clockwork

Is there any actual connection between the Indus Valley Civilization and Dravidians, or is it just typical Indian wewuzzing?

WE

Their language is connected to Dravidian.

That aside, why would it matter? Pakistan is an artificial country formed literally over 50 years ago. Before than, it was a part of India and inhabitants aren't so different from Northern Indians.

>Their language is connected to Dravidian.
Do you have a single fact to back that up? Typical WEWUZ Indians.

>it was
India is an artificial country with no real basis in history that literally only ever formed 50 years ago, the only time India was ever united into one country was with British Raj, there are multiple races, ethnicity, castes, and language families on a level never seen in any other country. India is a hugely diverse country, it is the most genetically and linguistically diverse place outside of Africa(because it's not a historical country). The majority of Indians are not north-western Indians and Pakistanis are only related to the provinces surrounding it. The north-east of India is Assam and the people there are Mongoloid. The southern part of India is Australoid and divided into numerous language families and tribes . The average Bharat is more Australoid, Negrito, and Mongoloid than Caucasoid. India is not a real nation, it's a made up country united by one fact of being Hindu. Even Pakistan is more of a real country since the people there share the same race, religion, and have actually related languages.

>Do you have a single fact to back that up? Typical WEWUZ Indians.
>web.archive.org/web/20060904034700/http://www.harappa.com:80/arrow/stone_celt_indus_signs.html

web.archive.org/web/20080509053921/http://asnic.utexas.edu/asnic/subject/peoplesandlanguages.html
>We can therefore conclude that the Harappans and the Neolithic people of Tamil country spoke the same language, namely Dravidian. It is recorded that the Neolithic people of South India were in contact with the Late Harappan or post -Harappan people of the Deccan. It is known that gold for the ornaments found at Mohenjodaro came from the Kolar gold fields in Karnataka. Finally, reference can be made to the traditional accounts in old Tamil literature tracing the origin of the Velir cheiftains to migration from the Saurashtra region of Gujarat which was at that time part of the Harappan civilization.

Pretty well supported theory.

>India is an artificial country with no real basis in history that literally only ever formed 50 years ago,
False. There has been an idea of India being a single entity since ancient times and in fact has been unified multiple times before. The Mauryans were the first to get most of India in a single state After them, the Guptas and the most significant, the Mughals.

You also get the idea that a country must be homogeneous to be called a country. Saying India isn't a real country because of it's diverse demographics is like saying the U.S. or Russia or China aren't real countries. The people are bound by a single identity (Hinduism) which is practically the basis for the name of the country.

>dravidian nationalist site hell bent on having an actual history
How about an actual peer-reviewed scientific source instead of a WEWUZ source that's been archived? We don't know the language affiliation of Harappan because we have no discernible relatives and we don't understand the Indus script. All we know is that there is no overlap in the territory and racially the Harappans are not Dravidians.

India has never been united before the British came and conquered all of India, a substantial part of India under the Mughals is not all of India. Diverse demographics means a different thing in all of the countries you listed but they all have numerous commonalities that Bharat does not and will never have. There is a common language that unites them at both the official and unofficial level, in India, there are 23 official languages and thousands of different native mother tongues, but this is not true in China, USA, or Russia. A common culture that is dominant and pervasive within the country, but such a thing does not exist beyond a colonial past. In Russia and America, caucasoids are the dominant race; in China mongoloids are the dominant race, but there is no dominant race in India, just pluralities and mixed-race people.

>Hinduism is India's entire commonality
What a pathetic pretend identity. There are Jainists, Christians, Muslim, Sihks, Buddhists and Hinduism is not even one religion, it's thousands of different religions tied into that name which believe and worship different things. Pathetically, a more legitimate country would be all Christian, Jewish, and Mormon countries from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the America's becoming one country, despite the entire lack of unification historically, disparate races, different religions, distinct ethnicities, unrelated languages, foreign customs, and alien ways of life. India is not a real country, because it's too diverse, too large, there is no commonality that connects Bharat, not even religion.

He's right though

You have no idea what you're talking about. Pakistan was partitioned in 1971, after India crushed their army in the most humiliating way possible. No to mention the Balochs want independence from them. So much for being a "real country".

The only reason for Pakistan's existence is because Jinnah felt Muslims wouldn't be safe in a Hindu - majority country. Religion is the sole basis of Pakistan's existence.

Pakistan is a failed state in every sense of the word. Even pakistanis admit they have no identity without India. I'm not joking when I say that right now, the sole reason for Pakistan's existence is to somehow conquer and crush India.

>literal paki propaganda

I knew you guys were brainwashed but I didn't realise it was this deep
Hinduism is not "a thousand different religions" or whatever. Hinduism means the overarching civilizational unity and long term continuity present in the subcontinent. It includes Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism. Religious conflict only occurred with the advent of Islam. Secondly, he's completely right that the ideal of political unity existed even if it was never achieved.

You don't need even think, just look at the facts. India has never lost any territory due to separatist movements since its independence. Meanwhile Pakistan has lost territory in the form of Bangladesh. Hinduism is more unifying than Islam. This is a fact.

>Dravidian nationalist site

Are you on drugs?

>did not refute even one(1) of my points
>does not even know the difference between hinduism and dharmic religions
So you can't respond to any of my points?

>How about an actual peer-reviewed scientific source instead of a WEWUZ source that's been archived?
Not an argument. The sources I linked were from linguists/historians who developed the theory which then became accepted by the overall community, but if you're so skeptical, here are some non-Indian sources:
web.archive.org/web/20070106015921/http://www.linguistics.uiuc.edu/jscole/Sindhi_Elsevier_encyl.pdf

people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/IndusLang.pdf

Again, everything points to Dravidian being the origin.

>All we know is that there is no overlap in the territory and racially the Harappans are not Dravidians.
The urheimat for the Dravidians is thought to be in Elam which they then moved to the Indus River to start their civilization. The Indo-Aryan migration pushed them east.

>a substantial part of India under the Mughals is not all of India
Semantics. Literally 95% of India was under them. The parts that weren't were still in their sphere of influence. There are also multiple languages in the countries I mentioned, both in a federal and regional level. Russia for example has territories based solely on the ethnicity that lives there. Caucasians are also the dominant race in India, not that countries are defined solely on race anyways.

>What a pathetic pretend identity.
Difference interpretations there may be, it all falls under similar guidelines and beliefs established by the Indo-Aryans. Also, if you claim that India is too random, why haven't there been any major separatist movements? You see these in the U.S, Russia and China but not in India. Hindu nationalism is the only form of nationalism you will ever hear from the country.

Hinduism = Dharmic religions. Contrary to popular opinion, Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism are nothing but movements within the larger Hindu tradition. Dharmic religions is a meme term invented by illiterate Western Indologists. Honestly the word "religion" itself is a poor word to describe the traditions of India.

Secondly, I replied to your dumb "India is not a real country guiz" spiel. The political ideal existed, and the people are united due to Hinduism. India has a concrete identity. India has every reason to be a country today, unlike Pakistan.

>The urheimat
What the hell are you talking about, the majority of scholars argue against this. "However, this hypothesis is not accepted in academic circles, and has been subject to criticism by other linguists. The Elamite language is generally accepted by scholars to be a Language Isolate, unrelated to any other language."
>Semantics
No, Mughals controlled maybe 60%. The Mughal Empire at it's greatest extent, which only lasted for a few years, is not indicative of real unification considering how quickly it split apart.
>Different
There have been major separatist movements, hundreds of different groups infact. Maoist and Marxist movements are still a big thing.
>only Hindu nationalism
It's called Khalistan and it's literally a Punjabi Sikh separatist movement. Kashmiris don't want to be part of India. Assam does not want to be part of India either.

Stop false flagging you snownigger

>major separatist movements
Funny how none of them have succeeded. Maybe it's because India is united...

It's beyond obvious you've consuming liberal amounts of Paki propaganda. The "movements" you've listed aren't even major, they're dead (with the exception of Kashmir, but that'll never succeed).

If Dravidians were the one who created IVC then why are there no IVC level bronze age civilization in South India. Stop with this We Wuz thing.