What's new

Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nassr

FULL MEMBER
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
835
Reaction score
0
Lets recount the major historical events from the earliest history of Pakistan to understand the relation of this land with various religions till it became majority Muslim.

The Indus Valley Civilization which emanated from Mehrgarh (7000 BC) in Balochistan reached its peak between 2500-1900 BC. Though the religion of these people has not been deciphered so far, it is generally assumed that they were monotheists. The fading out of this civilization was also presumed to have resulted in evolution of Rig Veda, the earliest Vedic scripture which many attribute as primarily monotheistic in nature. Indus Valley Civilization ended by 1300 BC. The Iron Age period can be taken to last roughly form 1200 to 300 BC. Most of the Vedic period (excepting the earliest phase of the core of the Rig Veda) falls within the early part of the Iron Age (12th to 6th centuries BC) and is therefore referred to by the Indians as a historical and geographical record, as no other historic records are available. However, there are various Indian Hindu religiously inclined scholars who state that Rig Veda should not be cited as historical and geographical references.

Alexander’s Indian campaign began in 326 BC in the territory of Indus by defeating Porus. Many historians relate it to the Dasarajna (Battle of ten kings) between the Purus and Bharatas as explained in Rig Veda. Those of us who have travelled on motorway M2 from Lahore to Islamabad/Rawalpindi do break journey at Bhera, a city which is over 2300 years old. This is the city which is cited as the probable location of this battle.

In 321 BC, Chandragupta Maurya founded the Mauryan Empire in India and conquered the areas under Greek rule during the Seleucid–Mauryan war (305-303 BC). The Mauryan Empire is generally said to be followers of Shiva and were probably Shaivites (monotheists). Their ruler Chandragut Maurya later converted to Jainism (monotheist). Later the ruler Ashoka became a Buddhist and it was also declared as a state religion. Mauryan Empire ruled from 322-185 BC.

Kushan Empire ruled between Ist and 3rd century BC in parts of Afghanistan and general area Taxila near Islamabad, Pakistan. The Kushans adopted elements of the Hellenistic culture of Bactria and emanated from Amu Darya area in eastern Afghanistan. Various Kushan emperors represented a wide variety of faiths including Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and possibly Shaivism (monotheists).

The kingdom known as Kabul Shahi comprising parts of Afghanistan and Taxila ruled between 565 and 879 AD when they had Kapisa and Kabul as their capitals, and later as Hindu Shahi. The Shahis of Kabul/Kandahar are generally divided into the two eras of the so-called Buddhist-Shahis and the so-called Hindu-Shahis, with the change-over thought to have occurred sometime around 870 AD. During the 7th and 8th centuries AD the Pashtun Buddhists of the same areas also predominated the populations of Sindh and parts of Punjab as well.

When Mohammad Bin Qasim attacked Sindh in 712 AD, he was supported by Jats, Meds and Buddhists against Raja Dahir. The rulers in Sindh were high cast Brahmins who ill-treated majority population consisting of Buddhists. Thus Raja Dahir was decisively defeated. This has been mentioned in Chach Nama. The religious demography of this area is therefore clearly indicative of this fact that though in certain time periods when the rulers were Brahmin Hindus, majority population did not generally follow the religion of rulers except during the early and later Mauryan period.

From the 8th century to the 9th century AD, many inhabitants of what is present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, and areas of northern India were converted to Sunni Islam. It is surmised from the writings of Al Biruni that around 1100 AD, some Pashtuns living in Pakhtunkhwa (present-day western Pakistan) and the neighbourhood of Sindh (ie Indus) valley had not been completely converted to Islam. Al Biruni, writing in Tarikh al Hind, also alludes to the Pashtun tribes of Pakhtunkhwa as Hindus. The word Hindu in those days alluded to the people living in a geographical location known as Al-Hind and not those who were followers of Hinduism, which was a much later characterization. In actual fact, majority of these Pashtuns were Buddhists at that time and the remaining were shaivites (monotheists). Gradually most of them came within the folds of Islam.

One aspect clearly stands out as a historical fact is that a large majority of the people living in the landmass of Indus Valley Civilization and current day Pakistan, for most part of known history since earliest times, largely followed Buddhism and Islam as their main religion and not polytheist Hinduism. And those who followed Vedic culture followed a monotheistic format instead of the later diluted polytheist culture based Hinduism.
 
The Rig Veda mentions a Vedic tribe called Puru. So, there is a possibility of King Porus to be a descendent of the Puru tribe.

Battle of the Ten Kings (dāśarājñá) is a battle alluded to in Mandala 7 of the Rig Veda (hymns 18, 33 and 83.4-8), the ancient Indian sacred collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns. It is a battle between Aryans (Vedic Indians) (an "internecine war", as the 1911 Britannica puts it, as opposed to the more frequent accounts of Aryans fighting Dasyus). It took place as Puru tribes, allied with other tribes of Punjab and guided by the royal sage Vishvamitra, oppose the Trtsu (Bharata) king Sudas in battle, but are defeated as was celebrated in a provocative hymn of Sudas' poet and priest Vasistha (RV 7.18).

One scholar, Buddha Prakash, Professor of History and of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Director of the Institute of Indic Studies (1964); in his book Political and Social Movement in Ancient Punjab, states:

The Purus settled between the Asikni and the Parusni, whence they launched their onslaught on the Bharatas, and after the initial rebuff in the Dasarajna War, soon regrouped and resumed their march on the Yamuna and the Sarasvati and subsequently merged with the Bharatas, Some of their off-shoots lingered on in the Punjab and one of their scions played a notable part in the events of the time at Alexander's invitation. They probably survived in the Punjab under the name of Puri, which is a sub-caste of the Kshatriyas.

Another scholar, Damodar Dharmanand Kosambi (1966) also seems to agree with this view. This view has other supporters in Hermann Kulke and Naval Viyogi.

King Porus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Ishwari Prashad and some other notable scholars of Indian History Congress believe that Porus was Shoorsaini. They argue that Porus' vanguard soldiers carried a banner of Herakles whom Megasthenes - who travelled to India after Porus had been supplanted by Chandragupta- explicitly identified with the Shoorsainis of Mathura. This Herakles of Megasthenes and Arrian has been identified by some scholars as Lord Krishna and by others as his elder brother Baldeva, who were both the ancestors and patron deities of Shoorsainis. Tod, Iswhari Prashad and others, following his lead, found further support of this conclusion in the fact that a section of Shoorsainis were supposed to have migrated westwards to Punjab and modern Afghanistan from Mathura and Dvārakā, after Krishna's demise and had established new kingdoms there.

King Porus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Rigveda 1900-1300 BC

Battle of Hydapses 326 BC.


The real name of Puru was Purushottama. Same were multiple kings with identical names like Bharata son of King Dushyanta and Bharata son of King Dashratha.
 
Already posted an article written by Prof. Dinesh Agrawal earlier but posting again ---

The facts narrated below will expose the popular myth about the so-called world-conquerer "Alexander, The Great(?)". I am sure your readers will be interested to learn the truth about the mis-adventures of Alexander in India.

Alexander did not win any war on the Indian soil, he in fact lost to Porus, the king of Punjab, and had to sign a treaty with Porus in order to save his diminishing band of soldiers who were grief-stricken at the loss of their compatriots at the hands of Porus`s army, and expressed their strong desire to surrender.

Alexander after winning many battles and defeating the Persian king, invaded India and crossed Indus. Here he was joined by Ambhi, the king of Taxila. Ambhi surrendered himself to Alexander. He was enemy of Porus and wished to defeat Porus with the help of Alexander.

The facts of Alexander`s miserable defeat and his shattered dream at Indian soil have been avoided consistently by Greek historians and the same was perpetuated during British regime. But the truth which is documented in many narratives of the Europeans themselves presents a totally different picture. The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are quite consistent and reliable in concluding that Alexander was defeated by Porus and had to make a treaty with him to save his and his soldiers` lives. He was a broken man at his return from his mis-adventures in India.

In the Ethiopic texts, Mr E.A.W. Badge has included an account of "The Life and Exploits of Alexander" where he writes inter alia the following:

"In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander`s cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He requested Porus to stop fighting. Porus was true to Indian traditions and did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed treaty, Alexander then helped him in annexing other territories to his kingdom".

Mr Badge further writes that the soldiers of Alexander were grief- stricken and they began to bewail the loss of their compatriots. They threw off their weapons. They expressed their strong desire to surrender. They had no desire to fight. Alexander asked them to give up fighting and himself said, "Porus, please pardon me. I have realized your bravery and strength. Now I cannot bear these agonies. WIth a sad heart I am planning to put an end to my life. I do not desire that my soldiers should also be ruined like me. I am that culprit who has thrust them into the jaw of death. It does not become a king to thrust his soldiers into the jaws of death."

These expressions of `Alexander, The Great!` do not indicate from any stretch of imagination his victory over Porus? Can such words be uttered by a `World Conquerer"?

I am sure many readers will find in the history texts, an account of Alexander`s exploits and conquests which totally contradict what is quoted above. And most of us have been taught in the school that Alexander defeated Porus and he wept because he had no more worlds to conquer, and that is what made him `Alexander, The Great`. These myths and beliefs will receive a rude shock by these facts which show that Alexander was not that great after all, but in fact he was `Alexander, The Ordinary`.

Another myth is propagated by the Western historians that Alexander was noble and kind king, he had great respects for brave and courageous men, and so on. The truth is other-wise. He was neither a noble man nor did he have a heart of gold. He had meted out very cruel and harsh treatment to his earlier enemies. Basus of Bactria fought tooth and nail with Alexander to defend the freedom of his motherland. When he was brought before Alexander as a prisoner, Alexander ordered his servants to whip him and then cut off his nose and ears. He then killed him. Many Persian generals were killed by him.

The murder of Kalasthenese, nephew of Aristotle, was committed by Alexander because he criticised Alexander for foolishly imitating the Persian emperors. Alexander also murdered his friend Clytus in anger. His father`s trusted lieutenant Parmenian was also murdered by Alexander. The Indian soldiers who were returning from Masanga were most atrociously murdered by Alexander in the dead of night. These exploits do not prove Alexander`s kindness and greatness, but only an ordinary emperor driven by the zeal of expanding his empire.

-----------------------------

Article is based on book written by E. A. Wallis Budge
http://www.gorgiaspress.com/bookshop...the-great.aspx
 
Since 1947, the Hindu population of Pakistan decreased from 20% to 1% now. I don't know whether is it is due to less popularity of Hinduism or forcible conversion and persecution of Hindus
 
Last edited:
Rig Veda is monotheistic in nature??? Buddhism is monotheistic religion??? Shaivites believe in monotheism???

OK what exactly does OP mean by monotheism???

Please read the explanations of Swami Dayanand Saraswati who clearly and unambiguously stated that Rig Veda is a monotheistic scripture and that idol worship is not allowed in Hinduism. And he did not like the Muslims by any stretch of imagination. Please read your own before you respond in a sarcastic manner.

And I never stated anywhere that Buddhism is monotheistic religion. Indian constitution does not even accept Buddhism as a separate religion and considers it as a sect of Hinduism. Even the decisions of Indian Supreme Court state the same. 
Since 1947, the Hindu population of Pakistan decreased from 20% to 1% now. I don't know whether is it is due to less popularity of Hinduism or forcible conversion and persecution of Hindus

Most of them left for India after the announcement of idependence by the British. And with regard to less popularity of Brahmanic Hinduism, I have quoted the historical evidence to prove my point.
 
Since 1947, the Hindu population of Pakistan decreased from 20% to 1% now. I don't know whether is it is due to less popularity of Hinduism or forcible conversion and persecution of Hindus

After few centuries Pakistani kids will start to claim Pakistan had no history of Hinduism, just like you will see many of them claiming now that Gandhara had no history of Hinduism.
 
The RigVeda is anything but monotheistic. Vedic Religion was basically nature-worship with a specific deity in control of elements like wind, water, rains, Sun etc. Indra, Vayu, Varuna, Savitr, Rudra, Mitra etc are among the various elemental deities mentioned in the text. And please, since when is Shaivism monotheistic? There are 5 "primary" Gods that are honoured more over the rest in Shaivism. Buddhism and Jainism are not monotheistic either. Rather, they're sects that border on Atheism!

It does not matter what a certain Swami Dayanand Saraswati thinks about Hinduism or any other religions. Those are his personal views. Going by the same yardstick, do all Muslims follow/believe everything that an Ayatollah says?

Just like there are sects in Islam, there are sects in Hinduism too. The only difference is that Shaivites won't kill Vaishnavites over this petty squabble. :partay:

Still, if it can help with his wet dreams, the OP can go ahead and sleep tight with thoughts that Hinduism was never established north of the Radcliffe Line in over 4000 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom