Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[jaibi]

This argument should never have devolved into which religion is better or advanced or not. It.s improper and impossible to decide via argument. I believe the focus was on the premise if people over here were 'always' aversive to the larger cultural and religious forces in the region. Let's go back on that.

 

[Luftwaffe]

Don't want to be harsh with my own Pakistan brethrens but reality is in Pakistan if not most almost half of Pakistanis have become/are more tilt towards superstitious, magic jado tona, dum wala baba jee belief than The Islam.

 

[notsuperstitious]

This argument should never have devolved into which religion is better or advanced or not. It.s improper and impossible to decide via argument. I believe the focus was on the premise if people over here were 'always' aversive to the larger cultural and religious forces in the region. Let's go back on that.

What spiritual inclination people had in ancient times is itself a useless argument as there is no historical evidence of political undertones to it and conflict of ancient pakistanis with ancient indians based on spiritual grounds. The only purpose of the current assertion, is that ancient pakistanis had some kind of spiritual superiority and hence they preferred ''monotheistic'' paths. Without going into the veracity of that far fetched sweeping claim, i want to state that hoping to get into an ''objective academic debate'' about whats essentially a cultural separatist spiel is impossible.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Lol Choora and chamar are different castes . Being a choora convert , you must know that . You are the one who is insulting by calling people chamars when there are millions of chamars in pakistan as well . I did not insult anyone . Just stating the fact . I apologise if I offended your low caste self . You also be proud of what you are . Don't claim to be someone or something not related to you .

You really are retarded as expected, chura and chamar are dalits. Im not insulting anyone, im just calling 98% Indians chamars, its your caste mentality that says its insulting. You being chamar should be proud of your dalit roots. We have dalits convert in Pakistan as well, Christians and Mochis are dalit converts, they combined make 3% of our population.

As i said before Vedic Aryans completly fucked your ancestors minds and now you hate your self, there is nothing wrong with being chamar. So you used chamar as insult which mean you hate your self because after all you are UP chammar who look like European.

 

[Vinod2070]

Typical thread prompted by identity crisis.

And denial...

 

[jaibi]

Thank you for being reasonable. That's what I'm saying, I started with this premise: history is not lateral! However the OP is more into accusing people in being liquid states.

What spiritual inclination people had in ancient times is itself a useless argument as there is no historical evidence of political undertones to it and conflict of ancient pakistanis with ancient indians based on spiritual grounds. The only purpose of the current assertion, is that ancient pakistanis had some kind of spiritual superiority and hence they preferred ''monotheistic'' paths. Without going into the veracity of that far fetched sweeping claim, i want to state that hoping to get into an ''objective academic debate'' about whats essentially a cultural separatist spiel is impossible.

 

[Contrarian]

I would like to point out here that it has been seen according to research that many people in India do not differentiate the Mongol and Mughal regins and accordingly, on both sides, associate the Mughals as the symbol of power of the Muslims in the region. The Mughals also get blamed for the tactics of the Mongol raids, in the immediate aftermath of Genghis Khan, to the Mughals and thus the Muslims. Here are two examples:
http://www.psr.jku.at/psr2005/14_02Sen.pdf
Culture, Social Representations, and Peacemaking: A Symbolic Theory of History and Identity - Springer

Historically these eras and civilisations are very different, the Mughals were a Turkic-Perisan influenced peoples, that had inherited Mongol blood but not much of her culture. Moving forward, the Muslim reign on South Asia comes under first the raids from the land of what is now Afghanistan, that again has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the history and culture of the region, this practice was carried well into the 18th centuary. Here is what comes up, once the Muslims were populated here, it was often seen that the raiders were 'softer' on the Muslims, however, this has nothing to do with any planning or any sinisterisation of the whole plot. It was an occurance of History that was never carried with certanity and the myth of the Muslim being the 'outsider' to the region was created over at these instances this is especially true as the Marhata's and later the Ranjit Singh's kingdoms begin to decline. This happens because of something 'Anchorage' according to Social Representations theory An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie I believe this article explains this. Not sure if you can access it, sorry. Let me see another one if you want.

Now then, come again to the later times, the partition, cements this feeling in both societies and history is read without context to paint the light of giving weightage to either this side or that one. Conservative rightists over here tell us tales of the Sikh conquest and Sikhs desecrating our Mosques. People on your side tell you about Muslims raping and converting as they go. These are out of context, and misplaced because most people do not appreciate the feel and life of the era. (Cominng to the Sikhs, the Mughal-Sikh dynamics were again political, not religious, Ranjit Singh had Muslim generals, the Muhgals employed a Hindu Army.)

I hope this can shed some light.

Jaibi.
In this context, it is true that people put Muslims under one bracket.

For example - the repeated sacking and pillaging of Temple of Somnath is considered to be done by 'Muslims'.
Aurangzeb was a downright bigot. He humiliated Hindus, killed by the loads and demolished umpteen temples and raised masjids over them. This was an act done by 'Muslims'.

Individuals become less important than the collective identity as 'Muslims' though they may be completely different dynasties or have different origins altogether.

Part of the reason itself is that all those who did all and always claimed that they did it 'in the name of Islam' or 'for Islam'.

So to the people of India - Hindus in particular - it strikes very particularly that Islam is the cause of such acts. And thus the hatred.

Then there is the added issue of Muslims of Hindustan- majority of whom are Pakistani's - take pride in such acts of savagery as though they are achievements. It further inflames and reinforces the view that North Indians here hold.

You would also note - that South Indians dont have such issues and are far less communal than North Indians. That is because its the North Indians who mainly had to suffer all this. The Muslim rule and influence in the South was very limited.

 

[jaibi]

To some degree, Contrarian, however, it should be noted that the sequence and interpretation has been done so in the colonial and post-colonial era. It was the British historiography that started to place the opression on the door step of once ethnic group or another.

Much of it is not really true. It has been made so. Each crisis arose out of the immediate context and was acted upon by each dynasty in a more strategic and political manner. Religion, much like regionalism and communitism was used to cement imperialist policies. That's what I want most South Asians to focus on. We're much happier being divided and fighting one another.

Jaibi.
In this context, it is true that people put Muslims under one bracket.

For example - the repeated sacking and pillaging of Temple of Somnath is considered to be done by 'Muslims'.
Aurangzeb was a downright bigot. He humiliated Hindus, killed by the loads and demolished umpteen temples and raised masjids over them. This was an act done by 'Muslims'.

Individuals become less important than the collective identity as 'Muslims' though they may be completely different dynasties or have different origins altogether.

Part of the reason itself is that all those who did all and always claimed that they did it 'in the name of Islam' or 'for Islam'.

So to the people of India - Hindus in particular - it strikes very particularly that Islam is the cause of such acts. And thus the hatred.

Then there is the added issue of Muslims of Hindustan- majority of whom are Pakistani's - take pride in such acts of savagery as though they are achievements. It further inflames and reinforces the view that North Indians here hold.

You would also note - that South Indians dont have such issues and are far less communal than North Indians. That is because its the North Indians who mainly had to suffer all this. The Muslim rule and influence in the South was very limited.

 

[Ajatashatru]

What a poorly written thread. Firstly, Buddhism is as much Indian as Hinduism. Furthermore, most Indians historically did not differentiate b/w Hinduism and Buddhism. This was a much later attempt by British historians to understand Indian culture by diving it into "religions". The concept of religion is foreign to India. There is no word for religion in Indian languages. "Dharma" does not mean religion. If you see Indian faiths like Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism from the narrow prism of religion, you will never understand them.

That sounds faking when when someone relates Rigvedic battle of 10 kings with that of Alexander's invasion of India.

Exactly bro...Rig Veda predates Alexander by centuries!

cut this thing from comment ..i know what u actually want to say to readers ............melluha to pakistan is pakistans civilzation not yours.....

Pakistani civilization? Man Pak's civilization is Indian with elements coming from Iran and Arabia. Nothing is "Pakistani".

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

What is Indian civilization? Legacy of few Vedic Aryans who were from outside India. Last known homeland of Rig Vedic people was Pakistan, no one knows from where they come from before that. I dont know why 98% of Indians are proud of civilization which brought misery to their ancestors and many suffer even now because of that.

 

[INDIC]

What is Indian civilization? Legacy of few Vedic Aryans who were from outside India. Last known homeland of Rig Vedic people was Pakistan, no one knows from where they come from before that. I dont know why 98% of Indians are proud of civilization which brought misery to their ancestors and many suffer even now because of that.

Proof lao.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Proof lao.

What proof? That Rig Vedic peole last known homeland was Pakistan even if Indian hindus hate to admit it? And before that? Who knows from where they come from, maybe pooped out from Pakistan or maybe central asia.

 

[INDIC]

What proof? That Rig Vedic peole last known homeland was Pakistan even if Indian hindus hate to admit it? And before that? Who knows from where they come from, maybe pooped out from Pakistan or maybe central asia.

Bring the proof for your last comment, not this one.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Bring the proof for your last comment, not this one.

We need proof for what Vedic Aryan did to Indians? Do i need to remind you of caste system?

 

[INDIC]

We need proof for what Vedic Aryan did to Indians? Do i need to remind you of caste system?

People don't formulate theories based on imagination but bring some facts and proofs.