Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[Flintlock]

^^^

If what RR says is true, then skeletal similarities would trump any "theories" of migration wouldn't they? I mean we can postulate all we want over this or that being similar, but if there is a distinct difference between the skeletal remains of the IVC people, and those of the Dravidians in South India, then that would simply indicate that a very small or "limited migration", as was suggested in one of your quotes, was what occurred, and the genetic makeup of the limited migrants got swallowed up by the majority of the Dravidians.

Dunno. He hasn't provided the name of the author who published his finds, but if skull sizes is indeed conclusive, then perhaps he is right.

Also, we must remember that there are a number of sub-races amongst the Indian population. The people of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka are hardly the same. There are significant isolated populations of Dravidians that are not your stereotypical smaller skull size, so the story is far from certain.

Besides, several Indus Valley sites have been found in Haryana, Gujarat and as far as Maharashtra. Perhaps this indicates a move to the south?? (just speculation on my part)

 

[roadrunner]

The strongest evidence imo, is the genetic continuity between skulls of the various periods, Mesolithic (c. 8,500 BC) and Harappan (2500-1500 BC), Southern Neolithic Chalcolithic (4000-500 BC), Iron Age (1000-100 B.C.).

This quote by Kennedy is repeated so is probably correct.

"Our multivariate approach does not define the biological identity of an ancient Aryan population, but it does indicate that the Indus Valley and Gandhara peoples shared a number of craniometric, odontometric and discrete traits that point to a high degree of biological affinity.�102 "
K.A.R. Kennedy: �Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia?�, in George Erdosy, ed.: The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, p.49.

Can't really do better than this quote for now, but noone is going to agree that Gandharans and Tamils were the same group of people.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Besides, several Indus Valley sites have been found in Haryana, Gujarat and as far as Maharashtra. Perhaps this indicates a move to the south?? (just speculation on my part)

I think RR had a quote about that- that the veracity of those sites being IVC was being doubted because some of them (and this might have been Lothar) used stone for construction, rather than the bricks that the IVC civilization were using in current Pakistan.

Again the argument, similar to the one made against the migration of IVC people to the south, is that using stone indicates moving to a more primitive form of construction, and that does not seem plausible. But I would have to concur with RR, archaeology is not immune from unethical, perhaps even subconciously, claims - and there is much for Indian history commentators to gain by showing the IVC and vedic civilizations as being heavily, if not primarily, concentrated in Bharat. So those claims cannot necessarily be considered valid until neutral analysis is done.

 

[EagleEyes]

Sorry guys. Stealth will not be available for this week. He will be teaching history to me for the rest of the week. It will be fun learning with each other.

Thanks.

 

[roadrunner]

I think RR had a quote about that- that the veracity of those sites being IVC was being doubted because some of them (and this might have been Lothar) used stone for construction, rather than the bricks that the IVC civilization were using in current Pakistan.

Again the argument, similar to the one made against the migration of IVC people to the south, is that using stone indicates moving to a more primitive form of construction, and that does not seem plausible. But I would have to concur with RR, archaeology is not immune from unethical, perhaps even subconciously, claims - and there is much for Indian history commentators to gain by showing the IVC and vedic civilizations as being heavily, if not primarily, concentrated in Bharat. So those claims cannot necessarily be considered valid until neutral analysis is done.

I agree..The Indian discoveries are based around the logic the Saraswati actually flowed in the route shown (which hasn't been proved). That's there explanation of why Haryana has IVC sites and so on. Noone is even sure if the Saraswati even existed. As has been pointed out, the references to the Saraswati could be references to the deity in the Rig Veda, so it isn't/wasn't necessarily a big river. Incidentally, the "Saraswati Heritage Project" has been cancelled, never managed to prove anything anyway.

"This is an assault on history," said historian Arjun Dev. "This version of the past is crucial to their political and religious ideology of Hindu supremacy. They will go to any lengths to achieve this -- even put forth a fake, invented past."

"It is propaganda work," said Suraj Bhan, a retired archeologist. "The quest for Saraswati is not about history, it is myth-making."

A Hindu Quest for Some Holy Water

This is quite a good article about the Saraswati by an Indian researcher, fairly objective, admits to the problems of "revisionism" by the BJP.

"It is only the biggest and the strongest of them, the Sarasvati, which got lost in the Thar desert of the Kutchch. Is it possible or conceivable? It is one thing to say that rivers often change their courses, and so may have been done by the Sarasvati; it is completely different thing to say that the river has been lost in the deserts. For so big a river as the Rigvedic Sarasvati to exist and then perish, it requires a major geological event. However, such an event would have affected not only the Sarasvati but the entire river-system of the whole region. As far as our knowledge goes, there is no such report for the last, say, 10000 years, let alone the late-Vedic period.

Secondly, some geologists show that in cases where great rivers with substantial supply of water at the source and catchment areas round the year flow through deserts, they overcome the resistance of aridity to make way for their courses. For example, the river Nile has been flowing along its 1600-km lower course through the Sahara, the ercest desert of the world. Similarly, the river Colorado flows through a comparable desert for almost 900 kms, the last 250 km of which pass through the Soneran, the hottest desert of the world. In both cases the rivers have been able to cut across the desert bed with their current. The Thar desert of Rajasthan is much weaker and quite younger compared to the two cases cited. It is, therefore, unlikely that a big river, the `naditama' which was supposed to receive continuous supply from the upper Himalayan glacier as well as from precipitation below, could not survive in the desert area.

Thirdly, in the geological sciences there are well-dened methods of determining the period in which a certain river-bed was active. No such study is known to have been carried out in the Ghaggar-Hakra paleochannel, without which there is no scientific basis of claiming that the river was active within the past 5,000 years. However, certain geological indicators point to the logical possibilities. According to some research data, all the major rivers of northern India (and Pakistan) have been owing more or less in their present channels (within their meandering belts) for the last 30,000 years [10]. C. F. Oldham, a geologist of the 19th century observed in 1893: Between Sutlej and Yamuna there is no opening in the Himalaya through which a large river could have entered the plains[11]. This means that even if the confluence of Satadru and Yamuna were able to make a big river like the Rigvedic Sarasvati out of the Shivalik-born Ghaggar, it had ceased to do so at least for the last thirty thousand years. Because, Rigveda explicitly associates the Satadru with Vitasta and refers to their confuuence (Rv – 3.33), as at present, when it has already taken the westerly course. It can therefore be inferred that the Vedic poets had not seen that palaeo-Sarasvati. What they had described in the Vedic verses refer to something else.

Fourthly, it is interesting to note here that Ptolemy, the renowned scientist of Alexandria in the 2nd century A.D.,who wrote a book on geography presenting many valuable information about south Asia in general and northwestern India in particular, mentioned all the important rivers of this Sindhu-to-Ganga region are,However, quite signicantly there is no reference about Sarasvati. This implies that at least by that time there was no such big river in the region.. This is an important point because even further back, none of the maps showed a bigger river than the Indus from the ancient Greek times (Indus was always recorded).

Lastly, there is a strong culturalhistorical and social psychological argument. Let us suppose that the dry bed of the Ghaggar-Hakra represents the remnants of the river Sarasvati. And this Sarasvati was supposedly associated with all the cultural ethos of the Vedic people. It is therefore natural to expect that the river, although no longer as powerful as earlier, should at least preserve its nominal title as such to the adherents of Vedic tradition. Is it not, therefore, very strange that during the entire post-Vedic era of nearly three thousands of years up to now, Sindhu remained Sindhu, Satadru remained Satadru, Yamuna remained Yamuna, Ganga remained Ganga, but the most important river Sarasvati became Ghaggar? Moreover, if it is kept in mind that many minor rivers in different isolated parts of India have been given the name Sarasvati by the Hindus out of a religious nostalgia, is it not very peculiar that they should rename the original Sarasvati into a desanscritized drab title of local dialect? C. F. Oldham also was bothered by this peculiar fact: “How the sacred river came to lose its own name and acquire that of its former tributary is not known[12]. It is this absence of any material evidence or cultural tradition that prompted many historians and archaeologists — both Indian and foreign — to conclude that the word“Sarasvati” is not actually a noun but an adjective which qualied a river evoking strong sense of respect among the Vedic tribes [13]. They point out the fact that the Sanscrit word Sarasvati can be split into the following two parts: saras (sarah = water) + vati (= lled with), which indicates the meaning of qualifying something as being full of water. It can also be used as an adjective. These scholars therefore argued that the Rigvedic tribes had probably adored the majestic river Sindhu as Sarasvati, i.e., as a river with large dimension. With the passage of time, we may further surmise, the later generations of the Vedic tribes who gradually moved eastwards and southwards and settled on the banks of the Ganga and Yamuna, carried with them a popular and collective memory of the dimensions of Sindhu. Since then the adjective probably got converted into a noun, and perhaps a popular myth arose around the existence of another river, as big as river Sindhu, or even bigger. Since the other big rivers like Ganga had already been given proper names, there was no other river left 6 Hence the search for a river Sarasvati around different parts of the country. It also gave birth to an imaginary river Sarasvati which joined the conuence of Ganga and Yamuna at the Triveni-Sangam near Allahabad. A real Sarasvati on the bed of river Ghaggar-Hakra in Vedic times could hardly explain all these subsequent developments. In this connection another interesting fact needs be recalled. Associated with the Rigvedic exhortations of river Sarasvati is a post-Vedic and Puranic tradition over`vinashan' (disappearance) of Sarasvati. In the Mahabharata and other contemporary texts it is said that Sarasvati, after entering the kingdom of the nishadas, the lower caste of the brahmanical era, felt embarrassed and went under ground in the sands[14]. This legend also seems to support the above hypothesis. In order to sustain the myth of existence of the Sarasvati in face of its non-reality, it was necessary to generate another, complementary myth which would explain away the visible non-existence of the river. Thus there is no reason to assume a palaeo-river matching the Rigvedic description of the so-called Sarasvati, nor has there been obtained any new data to look for it in the relevant region. The entire fanfare created around its existence, disappearance and recent discovery is geared to the ongoing attempts of the BJP-led Governments at the centre and in some States to boost up Hindu religious sentiments and prejudices over some of the sensitive areas of Indian history. Let us see how.
http://www.ee.iitkgp.ernet.in/~soumitro/bt/archives/saraswati.pdf

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^ Good article RR.

Some very good points raised about how it would be geologically implausible for such a large river to simply vanish.

I tend to agree with the limited migration into India part, after all, that has been the pattern of human settlement all along - slowly diffusing outwards from the center of gravity of major civilizations.

The question would be, at what point do those that move away from the center, become distinct from the original civilization? If the area east of the current Indo-Pak border was already populated, then wouldn't the amalgamation of the IVC people with the natives give rise to a culture that would not be IVC?

IMO, the only way the sites in Bharat could be considered IVC, would be if:

(a) The area was primarily inhabited, and the immigrants were able to set up IVC "outposts" without major dilution of their culture.

(b) The area was populated, and the IVC immigrants overwhelmed the locals - but even then you would have an intermingling of culture, and a dilution of both, unless the locals were subjugated/killed. But in a situation where the IVC people prevailed, it would be expected that their "advanced culture" would continue i.e the town planning, construction and scriptural evidence from the Pakistan sites would be found pretty much unadulterated in the Bharat sites. Now is that the case?

 

[roadrunner]

^^ Good article RR.

Some very good points raised about how it would be geologically implausible for such a large river to simply vanish.

I tend to agree with the limited migration into India part, after all, that has been the pattern of human settlement all along - slowly diffusing outwards from the center of gravity of major civilizations.

The question would be, at what point do those that move away from the center, become distinct from the original civilization? If the area east of the current Indo-Pak border was already populated, then wouldn't the amalgamation of the IVC people with the natives give rise to a culture that would not be IVC?

The IVC sites all used brick I suppose and had some common features I guess that constitute the same civilization. Why Dholivira would use stone then is a bit strange, since brick would be the better consturction material. But apparently Indus seals were found there. I think it's all too coincidental really.

IMO, the only way the sites in Bharat could be considered IVC, would be if:

(a) The area was primarily inhabited, and the immigrants were able to set up IVC "outposts" without major dilution of their culture.

(b) The area was populated, and the IVC immigrants overwhelmed the locals - but even then you would have an intermingling of culture, and a dilution of both, unless the locals were subjugated/killed. But in a situation where the IVC people prevailed, it would be expected that their "advanced culture" would continue i.e the town planning, construction and scriptural evidence from the Pakistan sites would be found pretty much unadulterated in the Bharat sites. Now is that the case?

Noone really knows the answers, because noone except Indians are allowed to run tests on the samples from those sites.

They might have adopted the same IVC culture and traded with the ones from Pakistan. They could have been different people, but part of the same civilization if you like. I don't really have a problem with that POV, the main problem I have is

• The sudden appearance of lots of new Bharati IVC sites happening to coincide with BJP's rise to power and influence in government.
• No neutral research being done on the Bharati IVC sites
• The number of websites that spout all these cultures and achievements are "Indian" when in fact the Vedic culture, Panini's achievements, Vedic mathematics, Brahmagupta's mathematics were all ancient Pakistani.
• Evidence as loose as an extinct river that probably existed are given. Then all the new sites miraculously fit around the river geography.

 

[Neo]

Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans were NOT Hindu !​

There has been a strong campaign by Hindu fundamentalists and Indian nationalists in trying to make wild hegemonic claims on ancient peoples who have very little to do with them. Unfortunately, a few respected scholars have also been manipulated into promoting their agendas and vested interests. This article in particular covers the ancient peoples of Indus Valley (Pakistan) called Harappans and Rigvedic Aryans (who were the ancestors of most Pakistanis) with facts that prove they were not Hindu debunking those Hindu/Indian claims. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans were Hindu.

Harappans:

Not a single Hindu idol/deity/temple has been excavated at Indus sites. Plus evidence shows that Harappans ate beef and buried their dead. This is what the renowned historian John Keays states on the religion of Harappans:

"The religion of Harappans is unknown. No site has certainly been identified as a temple and most suppositions about sacrificial fires, cult objects and deities rest on doubtful retrospective references from Hindu practices of many centuries later. Such inferences may be as futile as, say, looking to Islamic astronomy for an explanation of the orientation of the pyramids. In short, these theories are all fanciful and do not bear scrutiny.

"Depicted on some Harappan seals, is that of a big-nosed gentleman wearing a horned head-dress who sits in the lotus position, an air of abstraction and an audience of animals. He cannot be the early manifestation of Lord Shiva as Pashupati, `Lord of the Beasts.' Myth, as has been noted, is subject to frequent revision. The chances of a deity remaining closely associated with the specific powers - in this case, fertility, asceticism, and familiarity with the animal kingdom - for all of two thousand years must raise serious doubts, especially since, during the interval, there is little evidence for the currency of this myth. Rudra, a Vedic deity later identified with Shiva, is indeed referred to as Pasupati because of his association with the cattle, but asceticism and meditation were not Rudra's specialties nor is he usually credited with an empathy for animals other than kine. More plausibly, it has been suggested that the Harappan figure's heavily horned headgear bespeaks a bull cult, to which numerous other representations of bulls lend substance.

"Similar doubts surround the female terracotta figurines which are often described as mother goddesses. Pop-eyed, bat-eared, belted and sometime miniskirted, they are usually of crude workmanship and grotesque mien. Only a dusty-eyed archaeologist could describe them as `pleasing little things.' The bat-ears, on closer inspection, appear to be elaborate head dresses or hairstyles. If, as the prominent and clumsily applied breasts suggest, they were fertility symbols, why bother with millinery? Or indeed miniskirts?"

The Harappan seals depicting the sitting man/deity wearing horned headdress (which Hindus claim as so called Shiva) is as follows:
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/de.jpg

Similar to this horned Harappan man/deity is the horned Celtic Cernunnos that was worshipped in parts of ancient Europe:
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/dei.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/350px-Cernunnos.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/cernun3.jpg

On the other hand, Hinduism's Shiva looks totally different:
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/shiva.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/B-16shiva.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/statueShiva.jpg

So obviously Harappans did not worship Shiva, not even close! With Hindu hegemonic claims would ancient Europeans also be considered Hindu since the Celtic Cerrunos looks very similar to the horned Harappan deity? By the way, it is the cow that's worshipped in Hinduism whereas bull has a minor role. Bull was much more sacred in ancient Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures similar to the popular Harappan bull.

This is further supported by Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"The Bull Cult was a prehistoric religious practice that originated in the eastern Aegean Sea and extended from the Indus Valley of Pakistan to the Danube River in eastern Europe .... The Bull Cult continued into historic times and was particularly important in the Indus Valley and on the Grecian island of Crete. In both places the bull's 'horns of consecration' were an important religious symbol."

On the non-Hindu beliefs/customs of Harappans, Richard K. Hines states:

"Similar to the cultures of ancient Middle East, it appears that the Indus religion recognized some type of life after death. Unlike Hindus who practice cremation, Indus people carefully buried their dead in wooded coffins with their heads facing north and the feet pointing south. Included in the graves were pottery jars containing food and weapons for use in the afterlife."

And on beef as a common aspect of Harappan diet, Dr. Kamal Lodaya states:

"Meat was an important part of Harappan diet which included beef, mutton, fowl, fish, and other animals."


Rig Vedic Aryans:

Now coming to the Aryans.. The concept of Aryan Race is nonsense invented by the Nazis. But what is historically correct is that Aryans were an ancient people who originally inhabited Central Asia and later migrated southwards to the regions stretching from Iran to northwest India. These early Aryans had a similar language, race, culture, and religion with many variations. The Aryans of Iran were later influenced by the Elamites and Babylonians. The Aryans of Pakistan were later influenced by the Harappans. The Aryans of north India were later influenced by the Dravidic-Mundic natives giving birth to Hinduism. Of course in later centuries other peoples also invaded/migrated bringing other influences/mixing.

The Aryans associated with the Rig Veda and Sapta Sindhu (i.e. today's Pakistan region) were definitely not Hindu because they did not follow the Hindu caste system, they ate beef, sacrificed cows, culturally were closer to Avestan Iranians, forbade idolatry, etc. Also, not a single Hindu idol/temple has been excavated from the Rig Vedic Aryan period.

Here are some excerpts that support my views:

“The evidence of the Rig Veda shows that during the centuries when the Aryans were occupying the Punjab and composing the hymns of the Rig Veda, the north-west part of the subcontinent was culturally separate from the rest of India. The closest cultural relations of the Indo-Aryans at that period were with the Iranians, whose language and sacred texts are preserved in the various works known as the Avesta, in inscriptions in Old Persian, and in some other scattered documents. So great is the amount of material common to the Rig Veda Aryans and the Iranians that the books of the two peoples show common geographic names as well as deities and ideas”. (Pakistan and Western Asia, By Prof. Norman Brown)

According to A. L. Stravrianos on the non-Hindu nature of Rig Vedic Aryans:

"The word Veda means knowledge. There were originally four Vedas, but the most important is the Rigveda, which is also the oldest. The Rigveda is a primary source for study of the early Aryans; it is in essence a collection of 1028 hymns arranged in ten books. Per the Vedas, Aryans worshiped elements of nature in personified forms, and idolatry was forbidden.

"In Rig Veda, the gods of Dyaus is the same as the Greek Zeus (Roman Jupiter), Mitra is the same as the Graeco-Roman Mithras, Ushas is the same as the Greek Eos (Roman Aurora), and

Agni is the same as the Graeco-Roman Ignis.

"The image of the Aryans that emerges from Vedic literature is that of a virile people, fond of war, drinking, chariot racing, and gambling. Their god of war, Indra, was an ideal Aryan warrior: ‘he dashed into battle joyously, wore golden armor, and was able to consume the flesh of three hundred buffaloes and drink three lakes of liquor at one time’.

"When they first arrived in the South Asia the Aryans were primarily pastoralists. Their economic life centered around their cattle and wealth was judged on the basis of the size of herds. As the newcomers settled in fertile river valleys, they gradually shifted more to agriculture. They lived in villages consisting of a number of related families. Several villages comprised a clan, and several clans a tribe, at the head of which was the king. The king’s authority depended on his personal prowess and initiative, and was limited by the council of nobles, and in some tribes by the freemen.

"The outstanding characteristics of this early Aryan society was its basic difference from the later Hinduism. Cows were not worshipped but eaten. Intoxicating spirits were not forsaken but joyously consumed. There were classes but no castes, and the priests were subordinate to the nobles rather than at the top of the social pyramid. In short, Aryan society resembled much more the contemporary Indo-European societies than it did Hinduism that was to develop in later centuries in the Gangetic Valley."

Further supports how a few Aryans who later migrated eastward towards India slowly became Hindu because of Dravidic-Mundic influences:

"The castes were hardened by the time the Aryans occupied the middle land i.e., the Gangetic Valley and distinguished themselves from their brethern in Sind and the Punjab who were despised by them for not observing the rules of caste .... and for their non-Brahmanical character.” (Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakur)

“While some Aryans had by now expanded far into India, their old home in the Punjab, Sind and the north-west was practically forgotten. Later Vedic literature mentions it rarely, and then usually with disparagement and contempt, as an impure land where sacrifices are not performed.” (The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham)

This is further supported by Dr. Gurupdesh Singh:

"From geographical information in the RigVeda, the Vedic Period (1500-500 BC) was confined to the northwest. The hymns composed by Vedic mystics/poets of the northwest (Saptha Sindhva) tell that the Vedic peoples worshipped non-Brahmanical Gods (Indra, Varuna, Mitra), ate cows, elected their chiefs, drank liqor, considered the Punjab rivers to be sacred, and refer to people living to the south in the gangetic region as 'Dasyas'! None of the gangetic Brahmanical gods (e.g Ram, Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma, etc.) are mentioned in RigVeda hyms nor do they appear in connected Aryan Avestan texts and Hittite tablets. Avestan terms for soldiers ('rathaestar') and citizens ('vastriyo') are similar to Vedic-derived terms (kshatriyas, vasihyas) but the Avestan term for priest ('athravan') is not even close to 'Brahmanas'. Moreover, central Gangetic religious texts like the Mahabharta and VarnaAshramDharma of Manu call the Vedic Aryans in Saptha Sindhva 'mlechas', 'sudras' and 'vratyas'; 'forbid Brahmins' from even visiting the northwest country ('Vahika-desa'); and depict dark Dravidian Gods like Krishna fighting and defeating Vedic Aryan gods like Indra (Mahabharta). Similarly, the RigVeda contains taboos and injunctions against the 'dasya-varta' region to the south of Saptha Sindhva and praises Indra (god of thunderbolt) for victories over 'dasya-purahs' (dasya cities).

"Both early RigVedic and gangetic Puranic sources clearly point to ethnic, cultural and religious differences and a 'clash of civilizations and nations' at the ganga indicating that the Vedic people and culture of the northwest did not accept the gangetic priests, their gods, shastras, religion, culture and Brahmanical caste ideology. The eastern gangetic heartland is not only historically a separate region, but geographically resides over 1500 miles to the southeast of the Saptha Sindhva country. Uptil the advent of Mohammed Ghori in the 13th century, the northwest was politically unified with southasia only 92 years under the Mauryas (out of 27 centuries) since the start of Saptha Sindhva’s Vedic period (1500 BC).

"A few Vedic tribes from Saptha Sindhva broke RigVedic norms and migrated southward. These numerically outnumbered groups expanding into the trans-gangetic region near the end of the Vedic period (8-6th century BC) tried to use the indigenous Dravidian priesthood to entrench themselves as the new ruling order. Within a few generations of acquiring control over the foreign Gangasthan, the minority Vedic tribes were usurped by the indigenous 'borrowed' priesthood; their Aryan religion, gods and customs mostly deposed and supplanted with indigenous gangetic gods and mythologies; and their new social order (varna or color based) replaced with the pre-existing profession (jati) based Brahmanical caste system ('chatur-varna' ). Through religious manipulation and intrigue, the Vedic in-comers to Gangasthan were usurped and made to surrender their political rule and soon pigeon-holed into becoming the loyal obedient chownkidars of their 'superior' dravidic Brahmanas."

Now coming to idolatry which is an integral part of Hinduism, there are clear evidences of early Aryans rejecting it :

“They are enveloped in darkness, in other words, are steeped in ignorance and sunk in the greatest depths of misery who worship the uncreated, eternal prakrti—the material cause of the world—in place of the All-pervading God, but those who worship visible things born of the Prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time.”—Yajur Veda 40:9.

“The Formless Supreme Spirit that pervades the universe can have no material representation, likeness or image.”—Yajur Veda 32:3.

Also, early Aryans had a Monist belief of worshipping elements of nature (in non-idolatrous personified forms): “There is only one God, worship Him” (Rig Veda, Vol. 6, Hymn 45 vs 16 ) and “Do not worship any one beside Him” (Rig Veda Bk. 8, Hymn 1, Vs 1)

Then there are clear evidences in the Rig Veda that Aryans regularly ate beef and sacrificed cows for religious purposes which are strictly forbidden in Hinduism:

Hymn CLXIX of the Rig Veda says: "May the wind blow upon our cows with healing; may they eat herbage ... Like-colored various-hued or single- colored whose names through sacrifice are known to Agni, Whom the Angirases produced by Ferbvour - vouschsafe to these, Parjanya, great protection. Those who have offered to the gods their bodies whose varied forms are all well known to Soma" [The Rig Veda (RV), translated by Ralph H. Griffith, New York, 1992, p. 647]. In the Rig Veda (RV: VIII.43.11) Agni is described as "fed on ox and cow" suggesting that cattle were sacrificed and roasted in fire.

Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered”, and Rigveda (6/17/1) states that “Indra used to eat the meat of cow, calf, horse and buffalo.”

Quoting from Rigveda, historian H. H Wilson writes, “the sacrifice and consumption of horse and cow appears to have been common in the early periods of the Aryan culture.”


Conclusion:

Finally, to claim that Hinduism has been evolving is simply a very weak argument. Every religion is identified with a set of beliefs and customs making it distinct and recognizable from others, including Hinduism. Any people and religion can claim of their beliefs and customs evolving, but when a change occurs it represents a new identity. For example, Catholic Christianity is not the same religion as ancient Roman Paganism. Therefore, since Harappan and Rig Vedic Aryan religions were very different from Hinduism's beliefs and customs, they cannot be Hindu. Additionally, Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans of Indus/Pakistan region were geographically a distinct people having no association with Gangetic Valley and the rest of most India where Hinduism was born in later centuries, nor did they call themselves Hindu.

In conclusion, all the evidence proves that Harappans and early Aryans were not Hindu. The hegemonic and imperialistic Hindu fanatic and Indian nationalist claims on them are simply false propaganda based on myths and distorted history.

Ancestors of Pakistanis were not Hindu

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

 

[roadrunner]

Yup. That's true. Harrapans weren't Hindu, they certainly weren't Dravidian. I've found the paper where the proof of this is. Hemphill's papers are good for this. But anyway, if it was Dravid, and they were pushed out by invaders (as one theory goes, then they would have taken the Harrapan designs with them, and built South Indian cities like Harrapa, which they didn't. Instead it remained stuck in the Neolithic period

 

[Scorpius]

I was reading this thread at uni today and my sikh m8 asked me what it was about, after reading a bit he wasn't surprised at attempts by hindus to claim everything as being hindu or of hindu origin.

He has previously told me of oppression against sikhs and that hindus try to claim that sikhs are actually hindus. He showed me a video about the RSS I believe (hindu extremists).

However on topic, Pakistan has a rich history sadly much of it is overlooked either due to internal islamic fundemantalists or Indians trying to claim it as theres.

I once read about the buddhist/greco kingdom on wikipedia, very interesting apparently alot of the culture was mixed.

Greco-Buddhism, sometimes spelt Graeco-Buddhism, is the cultural syncretism between Hellenistic culture and Buddhism, which developed between the 4th century BCE and the 5th century CE in the area modernly covered by Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is a cultural consequence of a long chain of interactions begun by the Greek forays into India from the time of Alexander the Great, carried further by the establishment of Indo-Greek rule in the area for several centuries, and extended during flourishing of the Hellenized empire of the Kushans.

From: Greco-Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[roadrunner]

Yup. That's true. Harrapans weren't Hindu, they certainly weren't Dravidian. I've found the paper where the proof of this is. Hemphill's papers are good for this. But anyway, if it was Dravid, and they were pushed out by invaders (as one theory goes, then they would have taken the Harrapan designs with them, and built South Indian cities like Harrapa, which they didn't. Instead it remained stuck in the Neolithic period

Some proof IVC weren't Dravidian at least. Craniometric analysis in this case. QAW (samples from Xianjiang, non-Dravidian people), cluster with TMG (Swat), CEMH, HARR. At least craniometrically, the IVC people weren't Dravidian it would seem.

 

[niaz]

I was reading this thread at uni today and my sikh m8 asked me what it was about, after reading a bit he wasn't surprised at attempts by hindus to claim everything as being hindu or of hindu origin.

He has previously told me of oppression against sikhs and that hindus try to claim that sikhs are actually hindus. He showed me a video about the RSS I believe (hindu extremists).

However on topic, Pakistan has a rich history sadly much of it is overlooked either due to internal islamic fundemantalists or Indians trying to claim it as theres.

I once read about the buddhist/greco kingdom on wikipedia, very interesting apparently alot of the culture was mixed.



From: Greco-Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hon Scorpius,

These were called Indo Greeks, mainly the military governors left behind by Alexander turned independent. A numismatist friend of mine advised me that some 40 Indo Greek Kings have been identified between 3rd century B.C until the first century CE thru coins issued by them. Most of these Kings ruled the area what is now Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan. Thus these can be called ancient Pakistani Kings with little or no relationship to the area what is now called India.

 

[Plasma]

Hi guys, I stumbled onto this thread somehow and i found it really interesting.

Just wanted to say that you have a lot of knowledge about this stuff and i actually read all 21 pages. I find this sort of history very cool and was actually looking for something like this a few weeks a go.

Ok I'll ask the question here again, you guys might have a better answer to this. I always thought that Pakistanis were different and not mixed with the Hindus. I wanted to check what wikipedia said about Janjuas, because i am one, and the first thing it said was "The Janjua Rajput"

Now Rajput is an indian caste i think, so why is this said? Is it a mistake or something??

 

[roadrunner]

Hi guys, I stumbled onto this thread somehow and i found it really interesting.

Just wanted to say that you have a lot of knowledge about this stuff and i actually read all 21 pages. I find this sort of history very cool and was actually looking for something like this a few weeks a go.

Ok I'll ask the question here again, you guys might have a better answer to this. I always thought that Pakistanis were different and not mixed with the Hindus. I wanted to check what wikipedia said about Janjuas, because i am one, and the first thing it said was "The Janjua Rajput"

Now Rajput is an indian caste i think, so why is this said? Is it a mistake or something??

You're safe. Rajput is an ethnic group. Hinduism places Rajputs into the Ksatriya caste. If you were a Hindu, you would be a Ksatriya caste. But since you are not, it doesn't apply to you.

In terms of being mixed with Hindus, you're right, Pakistanis are not mixed with Hindus. Their ancestries are non Hindu also (dare I say that word, but the Muhajirs are perhaps the only ones with Hindu ancestry in Pakistan - this might cause an uproar, so could be edited in future ).

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

You're safe. Rajput is an ethnic group. Hinduism places Rajputs into the Ksatriya caste. If you were a Hindu, you would be a Ksatriya caste. But since you are not, it doesn't apply to you.

In terms of being mixed with Hindus, you're right, Pakistanis are not mixed with Hindus. Their ancestries are non Hindu also (dare I say that word, but the Muhajirs are perhaps the only ones with Hindu ancestry in Pakistan - this might cause an uproar, so could be edited in future ).

If we look in to ancestary then you will know that all the Muslims in these regions are convertes... No pure breed muslim will be available in these Indo Pak Sub continent.

If you broaden your perspective no muslim other then 1 who started it all can claim that he is a pure born muslim without conversion.

Our Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) is the One who is the Only Pure Muslim for whom all the Universe was created and it was his destiny to fulfill and complete the religion given by Allah -- ISLAM.