Would you still consider them Indians? Or have they gone through so much cultural change that they could no longer be considered us? You think the NRI communites share their same fate, of losing their Indian-ness and becoming something else? Kinda a stupid question, but I've always been interested in the Roma.

I kinda studied about them and NO I will not consider them Indians. It was a long time ago, they left india and have no trace of "indianness", hence they are not indians. Besides, Roma aren't exactly the people you want to associate with. Sorry for being blunt, but I wouldn't want to associate with a Roma!

I don't think NRI's will share the same fate, unless they completely loose what makes them Indians. Fiji Indians are a perfect example. There are many Indians who didn't lose their "indianess" abroad. But it is possible a good number of NRI's will lose their indianess just like whites have lost their individual nation characteristics.

You sound like you really don't like the Roma. Even though their culture is very different to South Asians, that doesn't change the fact that they're ethnically Punjabi.

Besides, they have had a big influence on European cultures, expecially Spain, which only adds to the list of South Asian contributions to the world.

if we consider all the people that move everywhere at one point it time to be that nationality, we would all be 1. africans and 2. tribes from all over.

I think a lot of the "bad behavior" results in being discriminated against and regarded as outcastes for not fully assimilating into their host countries. Though it is interesting how some ethnic minorities prosper and some don't in the face of discrimination.

Roma aren't ethnically Punjabi.

Thei langauge is related most closely to Punjabi, but they aren't ethnically punjabi at all. If anything, based of their traditions I would guess they originally came from the desert portions of Rajasthan (which share similar traits to them).........

There is strong evidence suggesting that Roma/Gypsies are ethnically related to the Punjabis:

Wikipedia:

The Roma left India/Pakistan less than 1000 years ago, while the original humans left East Africa at least 50,000 years ago (assuming the single-origin theory is true), so that analogy doesn't work in this case. The Roma are not of Indian nationality but they obviously have Indian ancestry, in terms of anthropology and linguistics.

The Parsis in India, who migrated from Persia over 1000 years ago are still considered Persian to this day, which is a similar case for the Roma but the only difference is that their culture is vastly different from their ancestors. There are also many SE Asians with Chinese ancestry but cultures very different from them but that doesn't mean they don't have Chinese ancestry.

The reason parsis are seen as connected to Persia is because they have a culture that makes them persian. Although a good portion of indus valley is in pakistan, no one associates indus valley with Pakista but with india. The same way, it doesn't matter if they were indian Roma have nothing that makes them indian culturally. So, they are not indians. PERIOD.

Unless Roma try to reconnect or restablish their ties with india, i don't see how I will see them as indians.

Parsis did assimilate into Indian culture very well, even though they retained some of their cultural heritage. Some even inter-married with regular Indians.

great now blacks like jiggyjiggy and jagger are trying to prove the there was an aryan invasion.... 2 .....funny.....

they want to prove that we are not originally caucasoid but that we became caucasoids.......could you pls take these topics to the africa forum then life would be much simpler for us real indians......

the roma are not punjabi they are rajasthani.......and kkd i dont think u can deny them they are not indian thats for sure but they have preserved their indian language (and in some rare cases their indian looks).......although its obvious that if any indian were to live in cold countries like europe their features would still be caucasoid but after a generation their skin colour would significantly lighten.......

hmmmmmmmm.........all these black/african dudes talk about is race.........i wanna talk about something indian.........

Although Roma are technically speaking indian, culturally I wouldn't consider them to be indians. I understand that they have a good portion of their indian language preserved, I just can't get to terms with them being Indians(Maybe I am being prejudiced ). Anyway, If a Roma considers himself an Indian, I would accpet him.

I think a lot of Roma look indian, specifically they look rajasthanis or from pashtun areas.

How come you keep calling everyone blacks? Have you got something against them? Is there even an Africa forum on this site? I thought this site was called ASIA Finest.

And please stop throwing words into my mouth... there's only so much I can digest... cuz I certainly don't remember a thing about saying Indians were "not originally caucasoid". And if you hate these race threads so much, then why are you posting in them?


The Indus Valley is associated with Ancient India, not present India, since South Asia and India used to mean the same thing in those days. Although Roma culture has very different to South Asian culture, they're ancestry and language are still of Indian/Pakistani origin. Its upto them whether or not they want identify with India/Pakistan, not us. There are also many South Asians (pure and mixed) who have been completely westernised, yet they still identify themselves as Indian/South-Asian. Again, it's upto them if they want to identify with their lineage, not us.

some of the ancestors of the bulgarians left but 2000 years ago. but are they considered "asians"? how about white australians, and white americans are they still british? nope. so are the Roma still Indian? no. are Jews considered Iraqi because Abram came from Ur? no.

and also there was no India as a solid "nation-state" nor "state" as it is today. so when the romas left 1000 yrs. ago (as you say they did) they technically are not "indian" because that nationality did not exist back then.

Your missing the point. I never said a thing about their nationality, I was referring to their ethnic origins. If as you say, the Bulgarians had Asian ancestors, then why can't they consider themselves Asian? Why can't white Americans/Australians consider themselves Europeans if thats their homeland? None of these semantics change the fact that Americans have European ancestry and Roma have Indian ancestry. Like I've already said, its upto them whether or not they choose to accept/reject their ancestry, not us.

but that's my thing. Romas left India when it's not India. So you can't say "indian" heritage. Rather either Asian or South Asian. and sometimes "choosing" doesn't really happen when it comes to nationality history etc. maybe citizenship...

India was what the Europeans/Americans have always used to refer to South Asia, while South Asians themselves used "Bharat" to refer to South Asia. When referring to pre-1947 South Asia, India means the same thing. But at least you agree that the Romas have South Asian ancestry, which was my point all along.

No, you've read it wrong. The quotes from Wikipedia are saying that the Languages of Romany and Punjabi are related. Its not saying that the people are related.

If you read down further on the wikipedia article, you will notice that it says that Roma people are considered to have come from the state of Rajasthan.

The Parsees had an agreement with Gujrat's King Jadav Rana. The agreement stated that they would only marry amogst their own and they would not prostelyze (convert people).

I guess I didn't notice the Rajasthan part... but linguistic evidence usually suggests some kind of ethnic relationships in many cases (but not all cases). Rajasthan and Punjab are nearby each other either way.

As for the Parsis, they are one of the very few groups in the world to have kept Zoroastrianism alive, which was the original Persian religion, so they are still culturally very Persian, probably more-so than the modern Islamic Iranians.

I go to school in Rome, which is Roma in Italian. And funny thing, there are many of em here. They are the lowest class people. They only (the typical ones): beg, steal and wash car windows during traffic light. And the car washing causes more traffic and they sometimes are persistent in persuading to wash the cars. They go up to you and suddenly say "I have 5 children to feed, please!". And they steal wallets in buses.

It's no wonder that the Italians don't like them. But I'm always fascinated by them. They travel in groups together with their grandmother, sons, babies carrying boxes of their things. THey're always so close to each other. And although they've settled for a long time in Rome, none of their culture fades. THeir still wearing their traditional clothes, even their teenagers. They speak in their own language and Italian to the Italians.

One time a gypsy woman got off the bus with a plastic bag filled with chopped logs. Everyone stared at her. What could she be doing with them in a huge city like ROme?? Is she going to use them to make spells or something?? Everyone stared while she went away. They are very mystical people here. Despite of the bad things people say about them, I just think they're really cool!

My cousin married a Parsi girl, and they both met in Mumbai. Everybody in America always assumed that she was "a regular" Indian though.

Tell that to my grandmother and grandfather on my mom's side =)

Well, you can also tell that to Indira Gandhi's husband. Anway, the thing is most zoorastrians are conservative or atleast the priest guys and they don't marry outside, but then again there are a lot of ppl who marry outside, which is the reason why their population is dwindling significantly.

Last I heard, the Parsi population in India is only about 70,000. Zoroastrianism seems to be dying away slowly...