a historic reference on India which explains the geo political reality 2000 years back

[W.11]

I have found a historic reference from a chinese history text book which is dated to the earlier centuries, i posted this thread in the history section but the thread got deleted as ''being irrelevant to Pakistan's history'' despite the source clearly mentions ''indus river kingdom Tianzhu''.

Questions are raised whether the concept of ''India'' was given by the british colonists and whether modern day indian nationalism is mere ''hindutva'' phenomenon, not being an avid fan of hindutvadis myself i still care about historic facts, care to read, the kingdoms of the indus mentioned here practice buddhism so they have nothing got to do with hindu nationalism or ideology in the first place.

Some efforts are made to link Pakistan historically to central asia, middle east, Iran, arab world etc all such dubious claims are based on ''genetics'' presently.

Reality is, Pakistan is a separate political entity today but can the event of 1947 be used to justify pre 1947 history as well?

https://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/hhshu/houhanshutextonly.html

regards

 

[War Thunder]

I have found a historic reference from a chinese history text book which is dated to the earlier centuries, i posted this thread in the history section but the thread got deleted as ''being irrelevant to Pakistan's history'' despite the source clearly mentions ''indus river kingdom Tianzhu''.

Questions are raised whether the concept of ''India'' was given by the british colonists and whether modern day indian nationalism is mere ''hindutva'' phenomenon, not being an avid fan of hindutvadis myself i still care about historic facts, care to read, the kingdoms of the indus mentioned here practice buddhism so they have nothing got to do with hindu nationalism or ideology in the first place.

Some efforts are made to link Pakistan historically to central asia, middle east, Iran, arab world etc all such dubious claims are based on ''genetics'' presently.

Reality is, Pakistan is a separate political entity today but can the event of 1947 be used to justify pre 1947 history as well?

https://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/hhshu/houhanshutextonly.html

View attachment 586849

regards

Most of Pakistan in that time was host to the biggest shrines and stuppas of Budha and Budhism flourished all over the place. People should visit Taxila and adjoining areas more often.

 

[TNT]

Current day Pakistan in the past was budhist as most of our local museums reveal. It doesnt matter who lived here because what followed was arrivals of armies from western sides. This continued for 2 thousand years. People settled and adopted lands. The current people here thus are of mixed race. Being the door way to india, the area have seen many types of invaders, persian, turks, arabs, pashtuns, even greeks. In old days armies used to stay for decades and mostly would settle. The current population mostly therefore are descendants of those armies.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Reality is, Pakistan is a separate political entity today but can the event of 1947 be used to justify pre 1947 history as well?

Yes, it can. All history has element of subjectivity and is defined by your perspective. No modern country even ones that are touted as ancient existed in the present form millenia's ago. Besides the changing political boundaries culture, genetics, language, religion etc morphs over such long time. Hell even physical contours on land like mountains change over millenia. Nothing is constant other then change itself.

However as is human want we trace events and then draw a line or a story that brings us today. A step by stepy process from 8,000 years ago terminating to the present. This is done by all nation states to create a sense of identity and is partly driven by politics. All history has a agenda behind it. Nobody owns the truth.

So specifically going to subject in hand. The moder Indian republic that only came into existence in 1947 refused to accept the existence of Pakistan. It was like two born with one refusing to accept the other. Underlying this was the thought by Indians that they 'owned' all of British Raj. Thus the refusal to accept Pakistan in 1947. The reality was we all were successor state to the British Raj.

The British Raj that modern Indian's think is theirs.

However the physical reality was in 1947 Pakistan was a reality. The majestic Indus was off on it's path to it's destiny. The arrest with Ganga by the British was over. The Indians have refused to accept this. Whilst they can't do anything about our physical existence but they do everything to erase our intellectual, historical existence. Thus the concept of Akhand Bharat. In their scheme Pakistan is just a artificial, bastard part of their India that will be brought back into the fold of the mata. In the meantime they refuse to accept our existence and regard our heritage, history etc as their property. We are just illegal squatters on their land.

This Indian agenda is clearly visible and is most strongly driven by Hindutvas although it must be noted that it even exists in Indian mainstream which I conclude is informed by how Indians are taught their history and identity which largely invlves raping the Indus and plundering our heritage to construct a fals narrative of India.

How is this Indian agenda clearly visible? Look below.

Do you see two females holding bags? Do you see x-ray of human lower torso? Do you see butterflies? What you see largely depends on how you want too see these ink blots. This is same in history of our region. Those who look with the Indian narrative will see "India" everywhere. Any trace dots they see from the past is "India" to them. Thewy just see reflection of their 'Mata India' in everything because they want to see it to fit their narrative.

For instance take a look at this thread. The OP is talking about coterminous Pakistan has has brazenly and has done so in other threads peddled the "India" concept of modern day Hindutwas. Note his "historic referance to India". No caveat has been added to clarify that this is NOT modern day India. A attempt has been made to conflate India with Pakistan which fits in with Indian agenda.

@waz @Mangus Ortus Novem

I have found a historic reference from a chinese history text book which is dated to the earlier centuries, i posted this thread in the history section but the thread got deleted as ''being irrelevant to Pakistan's history'' despite the source clearly mentions ''indus river kingdom Tianzhu''.

Because you insist of packaging this as "India". If you peddled this as ancient Pakistan or past tense of Pakistan without bringing Mata into it everything would be fine.

And by the way did you know Romania is not the Roman Empire of the past? Italy is.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Yes this was covered two years back by me in a big lively thread running 30+ pages...India and Pakistan have been seperate political entities for around 1600 years at the very least, whenever no outside power were forcibly merging us together ...Good find by the way

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...cal-divide-is-at-least-1600-years-old.513143/


But the religion argument doesnot hold---->India has bigger stupas and more numerous Buddhist shrines being the birthplace of Buddhism itself...The difference between Indians and Pakistanis is a racial one and not religious one..Just as the difference between Afghans and Pakistanis is a racial one and not religious one..else they would have been one nation....Buddhism died out in the subcontinent because of being an urabn religion,monastery dependent religion...monasteries were always targeted by the invading Central Asian horselords...Look at the sacking and burning of Buddhist universities by the Turks in India

 

[Rusty]

It always saddens me that our ancestors got out of the bondage of Hinduism and became Buddhists, but then were forced to convert to back to Hinduism.
Thankfully we were able to leave the bondage of Hinduism again and were liberated by Islam.

I've always had respect for Buddhism as it was our first attempt to be free from Hinduism.

 

[Chhatrapati]

It always saddens me that our ancestors got out of the bondage of Hinduism and became Buddhists, but then were forced to convert to back to Hinduism.
Thankfully we were able to leave the bondage of Hinduism again and were liberated by Islam.

I've always had respect for Buddhism as it was our first attempt to be free from Hinduism.

What is more saddening is lack of knowledge of history among Pakistanis including you.
Hindus and Buddhist peacefully co-existed for more than two thousand years. They propagated, and had constant agreements or disagreements over things which were resolved through dialogue rather than conflict. That's why you see a lot of similarities in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism. Thinking that only we are right and others are wrong gives rise to conflict, thinking there can be right in every other group gives rise to co-existence of other faiths and that's why India is the most religiously diverse nation on earth.

 

[Rusty]

What is more saddening is lack of knowledge of history among Pakistanis including you.
Hindus and Buddhist peacefully co-existed for more than two thousand years. They propagated, and had constant agreements or disagreements over things which were resolved through dialogue rather than conflict. That's why you see a lot of similarities in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism. Thinking that only we are right and others are wrong gives rise to conflict, thinking there can be right in every other group gives rise to co-existence of other faiths and that's why India is the most religiously diverse nation on earth.

then explain why there is like 1% Buddhists left in India?

Hindutva scum are always barking that Islam forcefully converted Hindus, yet 80% of India is till Hindu.
Now, like 1% is Buddhist from lands that were majority Buddhist.

You can't deny that by your own logic, Buddhist were forced to convert to Hinduism.

And that is a tragedy of India as they are the only real victims of forceful conversion.

 

[Chhatrapati]

then explain why there is like 1% Buddhists left in India?

Hindutva scum are always barking that Islam forcefully converted Hindus, yet 80% of India is till Hindu.
Now, like 1% is Buddhist from lands that were majority Buddhist.

You can't deny that by your own logic, Buddhist were forced to convert to Hinduism.

And that is a tragedy of India as they are the only real victims of forceful conversion.

There is no record of any forceful conversion to Hinduism. Buddhists are very explicit in record keeping, could you find any such story?

How do you think Buddhism first expanded in India? Forceful conversion? Buddha and his students debated and defeated a lot of teachers who at the time were mostly Hindus. They couldn't find an answer to Buddhas questions and accepted defeat. This made those teachers Buddhas students, hence they expanded in the subcontinent. That was in around 400BC.
Fast forward 1200 years.
Why Buddhism declined in India?
One guy, Adi Sankara. He debated and defeated many schools that existed in today's Northern and North Western parts of India established many Shakthi Peedhas (a form of school) throughout the subcontinent.

Everyone knows how Abrahamic faith expanded in India, you can't apply same methodology for everyone.

 

[Rusty]

There is no record of any forceful conversion to Hinduism. Buddhists are very explicit in record keeping, could you find any such story?

How do you think Buddhism first expanded in India? Forceful conversion? Buddha and his students debated and defeated a lot of teachers who at the time were mostly Hindus. They couldn't find an answer to Buddhas questions and accepted defeat. This made those teachers Buddhas students, hence they expanded in the subcontinent. That was in around 400BC.
Fast forward 1200 years.
Why Buddhism declined in India?
One guy, Adi Sankara. He debated and defeated many schools that existed in today's Northern and North Western parts of India established many Shakthi Peedhas (a form of school) throughout the subcontinent.

Everyone knows how Abrahamic faith expanded in India, you can't apply same methodology for everyone.

There is also no record of mass forced conversion of Hindus to Islam. yet you Hindutva love to pull that out of your butts as an excuse for genocide.

Everyone knows how Hindus forced our ancestors to convert to Hinduism from Buddhists as there was not even 1% Buddhist left by the 7th century when Arabs arrived.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

It always saddens me that our ancestors got out of the bondage of Hinduism and became Buddhists, but then were forced to convert to back to Hinduism.
Thankfully we were able to leave the bondage of Hinduism again and were liberated by Islam.

I've always had respect for Buddhism as it was our first attempt to be free from Hinduism.

Buddhism collapsed because of Turkic invasions of the 12th and 13th century...Buddhism still was followed by majority of the Eaśtern portion of the subcontinent till then..being an urban religion,Buddhism enever recovered from the destruction of towns and cities and the burning of universities and monasteries by the Turks. Urban depopulation of North India because of the Turkic invasion is a real thing...even now, the North donot have much thriving Urban centres...all are in the south ..Buddhism was an infrastructure heavy religion which needed a standing corps of hundreds of thousands of celibate monks to function...once they dissappeared ,the infrastructure turned to dust,Buddhism also disappeared...on the other hand Hinduism is an infrastructure light religion...yes its good to have big temples, but they are not critical in the continued survival of Hinduism...you only need the Vedas and regular fire rituals

@W.11 Why is Tianzhu also called Juandu ...given that Juandu means India proper and Tianzhu means Indus region

 

[Chhatrapati]

There is also no record of mass forced conversion of Hindus to Islam. yet you Hindutva love to pull that out of your butts as an excuse for genocide.

Everyone knows how Hindus forced our ancestors to convert to Hinduism from Buddhists as there was not even 1% Buddhist left by the 7th century when Arabs arrived.

This is a grey area I'd rather avoid discussing especially in PDF. But you're wrong. A simple read into neutral British sources will give you the idea.
The burden of evidence is on my side. I don't have Hindutva agenda and I don't care about all the bloodied histories nor hold a grudge over it, they are long dead.
But have a keen interest in history of the region and low interest in reading blunders made on history. That's why I called your BS out. You're welcome to prove me wrong with facts, that'll be productive for both of us. Further comments with blabbers will be ignored, deflection will also be ignored.

 

[Rusty]

Buddhism collapsed because of Turkic invasions of the 12th and 13th century...Buddhism still was followed by majority of the Eaśtern portion of the subcontinent till then..being an urban religion,Buddhism enever recovered from the destruction of towns and cities and the burning of universities and monasteries by the Turks. Urban depopulation of North India because of the Turkic invasion is a real thing...even now, the North donot have much thriving Urban centres...all are in the south ..Buddhism was an infrastructure heavy religion which needed a standing corps of hundreds of thousands of celibate monks to function...once they dissappeared ,the infrastructure turned to dust,Buddhism also disappeared...on the other hand Hinduism is an infrastructure light religion...yes its good to have big temples, but they are not critical in the continued survival of Hinduism...you only need the Vedas and regular fire rituals

@W.11 Why is Tianzhu also called Juandu ...given that Juandu means India proper and Tianzhu means Indus region

you are living proof of this
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/indians-have-smaller-brains-reveals-study.641257/

Arab accounts from the 7th century prove that there were only Hindus in Pakistan.
We know that 600 years earlier there were Buddhist in that time. We also know that Hindu kingdoms conquered Pakistan between that time and forced our Buddhist ancestors to convert to Hinduism.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Guys this is not so much about one thread differantiating/binding us but many playing out over time with our geography [Indus valley] being the only constant. If this was just about religion Pakistan would not exist and instead would be eastern flank of a Ummate begining near Spain [Marocco] flying over at least two continents and 30 [Algeria, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, saudia Arabia, UAE, Afghanistsan etc] countries with dozen languages. And India would be a Hindudesh with Nepal, parts of Sri Lanka, Bali and bits of South East Asia.

Europe, USA, Latin America and parts of Africa be Christiandom. In real life geography, religion, ethnicity, languages, history and plain chance inform the existence of countries. For instance. No Ibn Saud, no Saudia Arabia. No British East India Company, no India. To cap this it would be instructive to understand that the machinery of the state can often bind countries or people even if they disagree and eventually meld them into one nation.

For instance if Pakistan's matlab is Islam, India's matlab is diversity, Banglas matlab is fish. What was British Raj's matlab? It remained intact for nearly 250 years. Far longer then the three matlabs that succeeded it.

Certainly whatever matlab British Raj had was better glue then Islam in Pakistan where only after 24 years [1947-71] Bangla broke away.

 

[Rusty]

This is a grey area I'd rather avoid discussing especially in PDF. But you're wrong. A simple read into neutral British sources will give you the idea.
The burden of evidence is on my side. I don't have Hindutva agenda and I don't care about all the bloodied histories nor hold a grudge over it, they are long dead.
But have a keen interest in history of the region and low interest in reading blunders made on history. That's why I called your BS out. You're welcome to prove me wrong with facts, that'll be productive for both of us. Further comments with blabbers will be ignored, deflection will also be ignored.

If you don't have a hindutva agenda then you know for a fact that there was no forced mass conversions.
Here are the facts
- 800 years of Muslim rule yet India is 80% Hindu
If Muslims wanted to, we could have forced India to convert to Islam in less then 200 years like Europe did to the pagans there.

The fact that there are more Hindus in utter pradesh then there are people in like 80% of the countries in the world proves there was no mass forced conversion.