Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[Indischer]

@Nassr Are you sure that the people of IVC are not the same people that populate the Punjab and Sindh? If YES, you're the only one to believe so! If NO, well then, got to accept that they converted to Hinduism, Buddhism and finally to Islam or Sikhism.

There is no evidence whatsoever to say that many Gods were not being worshipped and the masses somehow gravitated towards Monotheism before the advent of Islam. There are many famous temples of different deities that have survived(partially at least) in many regions that were part of IVC and today part of Pakistan. What does that point to?

You have to remember that the boundaries of Pakistan are a very modern construct. If fate had willed otherwise, the whole of Punjab might have been in Pakistan today, or a larger chunk of Gujarat & Rajastan. Would your theories still have any weight then?? The Durand line, Radcliffe line etc are purely political boundaries, not cultural ones.

 

[Nassr]

I have read the RigVeda. I have told you before also that it is an assorted collection of hymns that set out to examine the nature of existence, worship and creation. It also honours the various existing dieties, notably Indra. Nowhere does it state that there is only one God or that worshipping many Gods is a sin/is prohibited.

In large parts, it is a dialogue between Indra and his worshippers. A few hymns praise the Lord, a few ask for his blessings, a few cite his achievements while a few are written such that they are meant to be his reply to his followers. Within these dialogues are certain clues about the people to whom this belonged to historically. One of the reasons why they may have historical veracity was actually given by you itself. Remember when you told that the RigVeda referred to outsiders as Mleccha, which might be a reference to Meluha?

The Vedas are not very different from the Testaments or Quran & Hadiths. While a few verses can be historically verified, a few verses cannot be believed by anyone in their right mind! (no offense meant to anyone)

You are aware of the discussion earlier here on this thread about Rig Veda being monotheistic or otherwise. The person stating that it was monotheist in nature was probably also Indian Hindu. Swami Dayanand Saraswati of Arya Samaj also stated the same along with many others. As I have read the scripture and its explanations analysed by pronounced scholars, I also believe that Rig Veda was monotheistic in nature. There however, are divergent views on this aspect.

If the Rig Veda is the word of God alone and it should be read and revered as such, it being referenced as a historical record may be inappropriate. But the fact remains that it is used as a historical reference by majority of Indian Hindus to justify various past events and the geography is quoted to justify India's existance as a country. This mixes religion with history and this is exactly what majority Indians accuse the Pakistanis of while doing the same themselves.

I never mentioned that the reference of Mlechha is from Rig Veda.

And the major problem emerges when Indian Hinduism is projected as a broad religion encompassing all the so-called Dharmic religions as part of broader Hinduism or its sub sects. All the other religions do not accept such a categorization and it is depicted as discrimination of minority religious factions.

 

[bronxbull]

all the religions accept it,they are not stopped from practicing their religion.

 

[Nassr]

@Nassr Are you sure that the people of IVC are not the same people that populate the Punjab and Sindh? If YES, you're the only one to believe so! If NO, well then, got to accept that they converted to Hinduism, Buddhism and finally to Islam or Sikhism.

There is no evidence whatsoever to say that many Gods were not being worshipped and the masses somehow gravitated towards Monotheism before the advent of Islam. There are many famous temples of different deities that have survived(partially at least) in many regions that were part of IVC and today part of Pakistan. What does that point to?

You have to remember that the boundaries of Pakistan are a very modern construct. If fate had willed otherwise, the whole of Punjab might have been in Pakistan today, or a larger chunk of Gujarat & Rajastan. Would your theories still have any weight then?? The Durand line, Radcliffe line etc are purely political boundaries, not cultural ones.

The fact is that the a large majority of current Pakistanis are the descendants of the Meluhha. And yes, as the borders were drawn by the British, parts of Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat which formed part of the IVC landmass, were given to India.

Romila Thapar also speculates that the people of IVC were monotheists and so does Khan A. Sufyan and certain others as well state the same. I believe that they were monotheists. They could not have been Vedic or Hindu as both these cultures emerged after fading out of the IVC.

The Indian Hindus believe that Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Shaivism and many other religions either monotheists or polytheists or following different format are part of broader Hindu religion due to their being Dharmic in nature, which is incorrect. The landmass of Pakistan never followed Hinduism as a majority religion since earliest times and this is a fact. They followed different shades of monotheism, Buddhism and later Islam as a majority religion, but never Hinduism as practiced in India. Yes there were Hindus present but never in majority.

sanskrit is a very old language more than 5000 years old,who are linguists?

most timelines of people involve around the times of jesus and mohammad,there is no carbon dating done to prove anything.

I agree with your thought process, but majority of language experts agree to the fact that Sanskrit evolved around 1000 BC.

 

[Indischer]

You are aware of the discussion earlier here on this thread about Rig Veda being monotheistic or otherwise. The person stating that it was monotheist in nature was probably also Indian Hindu. Swami Dayanand Saraswati of Arya Samaj also stated the same along with many others. As I have read the scripture and its explanations analysed by pronounced scholars, I also believe that Rig Veda was monotheistic in nature. There however, are divergent views on this aspect.

If the Rig Veda is the word of God alone and it should be read and revered as such, it being referenced as a historical record may be inappropriate. But the fact remains that it is used as a historical reference by majority of Indian Hindus to justify various past events and the geography is quoted to justify India's existance as a country. This mixes religion with history and this is exactly what majority Indians accuse the Pakistanis of while doing the same themselves.

I never mentioned that the reference of Mlechha is from Rig Veda.

And the major problem emerges when Indian Hinduism is projected as a broad religion encompassing all the so-called Dharmic religions as part of broader Hinduism or its sub sects. All the other religions do not accept such a categorization and it is depicted as discrimination of minority religious factions.

And do you remember me asking whether every Muslim will believe everything that an Ayatollah preaches? Swami Dayanand Saraswati indoctrinated the Arya Samaj the way he saw fit. His words on Hinduism are his interpretations alone and are respected by many. But to call him the absolute authority on Hinduism is to call Ayatollah Khomenei as the absolute authority of Islam.

The word Mlechha for an outsider(the Tusharas i.e Tocharians, the Kambojas i.e the Cambodians etc were considered outsiders) is first mentioned in the RigVeda.

I don't know who has accused Pakistan of mixing History with Religion. I don't, as long as there is another source that can corroborate them. And yes, the Dharmic school of thought is what has given rise to Buddhism, Jainism etc. The Gautama Buddha is also seen as one of 10 avatars of Vishnu. In fact, each of these religions have expanded upon the idea of renunciation, non-violence etc, ideas which were first propounded by the Sanatana Dharma. Hinduism and Islam can jointly claim to have given rise to Sikhism, but since Islam is seen as the final word of God, Islam has shunned Sikhism and Hinduism has ended up getting the sole credit.

 

[Nassr]

all the religions accept it,they are not stopped from practicing their religion.

Yes, they do practice their religion but are not accepted as people following separate religion. Indian Constitution identifies Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains as part of broader Hindu religion and the Supreme Court of India also states the same in its various decisions and observations.

 

[Nassr]

And do you remember me asking whether every Muslim will believe everything that an Ayatollah preaches? Swami Dayanand Saraswati indoctrinated the Arya Samaj the way he saw fit. His words on Hinduism are his interpretations alone and are respected by many. But to call him the absolute authority on Hinduism is to call Ayatollah Khomenei as the absolute authority of Islam.

The word Mlechha for an outsider(the Tusharas i.e Tocharians, the Kambojas i.e the Cambodians etc were considered outsiders) is first mentioned in the RigVeda.

I don't know who has accused Pakistan of mixing History with Religion. I don't, as long as there is another source that can corroborate them. And yes, the Dharmic school of thought is what has given rise to Buddhism, Jainism etc. The Gautama Buddha is also seen as one of 10 avatars of Vishnu. In fact, each of these religions have expanded upon the idea of renunciation, non-violence etc, ideas which were first propounded by the Sanatana Dharma. Hinduism and Islam can jointly claim to have given rise to Sikhism, but since Islam is seen as the final word of God, Islam has shunned Sikhism and Hinduism has ended up getting the sole credit.

Agreed - In my earlier response I did qualify that there are divergent views on the aspect of Rig veda being monotheistic or otherwise. I believe that it was monotheistic in its propagation.However, one this stands out in the case of Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism and many other formats which are considered part of Hinduism as a Dharmic format. The people of these religions do not want to be part of a broader Hindu format and they insist that they are followers of a separate religion which up-till now has not been accepted by India's establishment including its Supreme Court. In such a case, I would go along with those people who religiously and historically prove their different religious identity.

 

[Indischer]

The Indian Hindus believe that Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Shaivism and many other religions either monotheists or polytheists or following different format are part of broader Hindu religion due to their being Dharmic in nature, which is incorrect. The landmass of Pakistan never followed Hinduism as a majority religion since earliest times and this is a fact. They followed different shades of monotheism, Buddhism and later Islam as a majority religion, but never Hinduism as practiced in India. Yes there were Hindus present but never in majority.

These statements, coming from you, are very disappointing.

Firstly, it's unclear if the people of IVC practiced monotheism or Animism involving multiple Gods. There are figurines of both Mother Goddesses and Male Deities recovered from IVC. That makes it at least two Gods right there! How were they monotheists then?

If the Aryans entered India around 1500B.C and dominated the land that constitute Pakistan, then the people of IVC must have adopted Hinduism at least from 1200BC to 200BC, till Buddhism arrived, spread by Ashoka. A lot of classical Sanskrit authors came from the region of today's Punjab and their texts make it clear that Sanatana Dharma was the only major religion in the area. Buddhism too, was not spread only in today's Pakistan but in large parts of India at it's zenith. This was mostly from around 2nd century BC to 4th Century AD, before the Gupta empire revived Hinduism. The first conquest of Moh'd Bin Qasim on Sindh took place in 8th century, but it wasn't at least until 12th Century that Islam found a political foothold in India and mass conversions to Islam took place in Punjab and elsewhere. Islam and Hinduism were spread in every village of every province of India by the time the British took over. The stats speak for themselves. Lahore had an equal number of Muslims vs Hindu-Sikh combination at the stroke of independence. Weren't the Hindus+Sikhs of Lahore the same descendents of the people of IVC? This was pretty much the case throughout Punjab and Sindh (very very few districts had 2/3rd Muslim majority in either of these two states).

 

[bronxbull]

Yes, they do practice their religion but are not accepted as people following separate religion. Indian Constitution identifies Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains as part of broader Hindu religion and the Supreme Court of India also states the same in its various decisions and observations.

yeah so all that forms hinduism,my religion is sanatan dharma.theirs are also similar and we all together make up the hindus.

 

[Indischer]

Agreed - In my earlier response I did qualify that there are divergent views on the aspect of Rig veda being monotheistic or otherwise. I believe that it was monotheistic in its propagation.However, one this stands out in the case of Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism and many other formats which are considered part of Hinduism as a Dharmic format. The people of these religions do not want to be part of a broader Hindu format and they insist that they are followers of a separate religion which up-till now has not been accepted by India's establishment including its Supreme Court. In such a case, I would go along with those people who religiously and historically prove their different religious identity.

I guess it's really difficult to prove that these religions are not part of Hinduism in some sense. And to compound the problem is the fact that Hinduism itself is a loose agglomeration of many different(sometimes divergent) sects.

I guess in the case of Buddhism and Jainism at least, the following adage holds true. They, to Hinduism, are what dialects are to a language. (If the dialect has political might, it shall reclassify itself as a new language.)

 

[Nassr]

yeah so all that forms hinduism,my religion is sanatan dharma.theirs are also similar and we all together make up the hindus.

I am sorry I disagree with you and so do Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains and many other Indian religions. You can not force some one to be part of your religion if he disagrees with your categorization and belief.

 

[Nassr]

These statements, coming from you, are very disappointing.

Firstly, it's unclear if the people of IVC practiced monotheism or Animism involving multiple Gods. There are figurines of both Mother Goddesses and Male Deities recovered from IVC. That makes it at least two Gods right there! How were they monotheists then?

If the Aryans entered India around 1500B.C and dominated the land that constitute Pakistan, then the people of IVC must have adopted Hinduism at least from 1200BC to 200BC, till Buddhism arrived, spread by Ashoka. A lot of classical Sanskrit authors came from the region of today's Punjab and their texts make it clear that Sanatana Dharma was the only major religion in the area. Buddhism too, was not spread only in today's Pakistan but in large parts of India at it's zenith. This was mostly from around 2nd century BC to 4th Century AD, before the Gupta empire revived Hinduism. The first conquest of Moh'd Bin Qasim on Sindh took place in 8th century, but it wasn't at least until 12th Century that Islam found a political foothold in India and mass conversions to Islam took place in Punjab and elsewhere. Islam and Hinduism were spread in every village of every province of India by the time the British took over. The stats speak for themselves. Lahore had an equal number of Muslims vs Hindu-Sikh combination at the stroke of independence. Weren't the Hindus+Sikhs of Lahore the same descendents of the people of IVC? This was pretty much the case throughout Punjab and Sindh (very very few districts had 2/3rd Muslim majority in either of these two states).

I am sorry if you are disappointed but what I am stating is factual in entirety. You say that there were figurines of Mother Goddess and male Deities recovered from IVC. These figurines became Goddess and Deities because thousands of years later these were identified as such by a religion in India and not because the people of IVC also accepted and characterized these as such. This is justification in reverse and does not prove anything.

The Aryan Invasion Theory has been debunked a long time ago and I do not agree with any such happening taking place. If at all there were any migrations that took place, these would have been over a long long period of time and would not have changed or impacted the local culture in a big way. The fact that the people of IVC conducted major trade with Mesopotamia, yet also the fact that no Mesopotamian cultural similarity exists between the two civilizations speak of the strength of IVC civilization in maintaining their societal and cultural singularity and distinctive and separate identity. In such an environment, how could the invading and migrating Aryans would have changed the cultural and societal practices of the people of IVC - they could not have.

Most of the Vedic period falls within the early part of the Iron Age between 12th to 6th centuries BC. This was the evolutionary period and one can not state this with any surety that whether the people of IVC followed Vedic culture. You see even after complete fading out of IVC by around 1300 BC, the people living in the cities did not move out of these cities and continued living there and this has been accepted by all the archeologists and historians that I have read. The Vedic culture as described in the Rig Veda is primarily rural in nature and the IVC people even after complete fading out were still urbanized in nature. This change, if at all, would have occurred much later in time frame and could not have started around 1200 BC. Talageri describes the emanation of Aryaverta as not Punjab but area east of Punjab and he says that it later moved west to Punjab. Which would also place it much later in time frame.

And if these people followed monotheistic format, as many scholars believe, their religious format would certainly be different than the one Indian Hindus practice. Many scholars believe that Porus, who fought Alexander the Great around 300 some BC, was a monotheist and thus falls well within the expanding history. Kushans invaded in the 3rd century BC. Various Kushan emperors represented a wide variety of faiths including Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and possibly Shaivism (monotheists).

In pre-1947, non-Muslim population in present day Pakistan was:

1. W. Punjab: 9% Hindu, 11% Sikh
2. Sindh: 10% Hindu, 5% Sikh
3. NWFP: 2.5% Hindu, 2.5% Sikh
4. Baluchistan: 3% Hindu

According to the UN and other respected organizations, 12-24 millionis the total estimate of migrations from both India and Pakistan(East Pakistan included) of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs combined at the time of partition. This amounts to almost 50% of the total Hindu and Sikh population migrating to India.

Therefore, the history very clearly indicates that since the earliest times, there was never a majority Hindu population in the areas of Pakistan.

 

[Thirdfront]

There is lot of difference in hearing or reciting a small part of it and can not be replaced by the understanding one gathers after reading the Rig Veda and other scriptures.

The language of the IVC has not been deciphered so far. However it is known that it was written from right to left. According to linguists Sanskrit originated around 1000 BC. This is well after the IVC faded out. Therefore the Sanskrit written symbol of OM could possibly not have been present during the times of the IVC. Secondly, Vedic culture also emerged after the fading out of IVC. Anything which was copied from thousands of years earlier and used for a particular purpose thousands of years later, does not automatically indicate that the earlier usage was also for the same purpose.

The mere fact that the Vedas originated after fading out of the IVC clearly indicate that the people of IVC could not have read it. And also the fact that these scriptures being in Sanskrit, which was evolved much later, also substantiate this fact that the people of IVC never had the opportunity to read these scriptures.

The people of IVC did not vanish in thin air and their descendants are present as majority Pakistanis. Hinduism was never practiced as a majority religion within the landmass of Pakistan since the earliest times and history proves this as a fact.

Sorry dude, you must have missed latest development in IVC. The most scientific analysis of their language puts it nearer to Sanskrit. The other contender is Tamil language which again is the part of Hindu heritage. Om was there in the IVC seals, then how on earth you claim that it was not? Your claim is so funny, first you say IVC did not know Rig Veda then say they might have recited a small part but they were not Hindus? No where you address my questions though. Also, how do you know descendants of IVC people live only in present day Pak and not in India? you got proof or did some IVC person time traveled to inform you specially? After IVC, did that whole area lay empty till muslims came and settled? in that case, you can't claim that present day people are IVC descendants. Or, if people were present, which religion they belonged to?
You see, when you start with a conjunction to suit your propaganda, and then you try to throw some jargon and made up facts to prove yourself right, you look amateurish like you are looking like now...

 

[Nassr]

I guess it's really difficult to prove that these religions are not part of Hinduism in some sense. And to compound the problem is the fact that Hinduism itself is a loose agglomeration of many different(sometimes divergent) sects.

I guess in the case of Buddhism and Jainism at least, the following adage holds true. They, to Hinduism, are what dialects are to a language. (If the dialect has political might, it shall reclassify itself as a new language.)

This is what your belief is, not of Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists or Shaivites etc etc. The whole world accepts Sikhs and Buddhists etc as separate religions except India where they live and demand their separate religious status which is denied to the, probably in order to preserve the Dharmic Hindu format.

 

[Thirdfront]

The fact is that the a large majority of current Pakistanis are the descendants of the Meluhha. And yes, as the borders were drawn by the British, parts of Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat which formed part of the IVC landmass, were given to India.

Romila Thapar also speculates that the people of IVC were monotheists and so does Khan A. Sufyan and certain others as well state the same. I believe that they were monotheists. They could not have been Vedic or Hindu as both these cultures emerged after fading out of the IVC.

The Indian Hindus believe that Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Shaivism and many other religions either monotheists or polytheists or following different format are part of broader Hindu religion due to their being Dharmic in nature, which is incorrect. The landmass of Pakistan never followed Hinduism as a majority religion since earliest times and this is a fact. They followed different shades of monotheism, Buddhism and later Islam as a majority religion, but never Hinduism as practiced in India. Yes there were Hindus present but never in majority.



I agree with your thought process, but majority of language experts agree to the fact that Sanskrit evolved around 1000 BC.

Make up your mind. First you say Hinduism is monotheistic and give example of Arya Samaj. Now you say IVC were monotheist and thus can not be Hindus. So, which religion they belonged to? Which religion majority people belonged to in present day Pak between the time period of end of IVC and 5th century CE?