Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[Indischer]

No, I have never said that. Islam came to Pakistani landmass much later and before that the people did follow different religions. All I am stating is that Indian Hindu religion was not the one majority followed here. These people were monotheists from earliest times, then they adopted Buddhism in large numbers and later followed Islam, also in majority. There were those who followed the Indian Hindu culture but their number was comparatively much less and they were never in majority since the earliest times. And this is a historically supported fact.

Your historical inaccuracies aside, what's your fascination with monotheism? What's so bad about polytheism and what's so good about monotheism?? Even supposing there is ONE God, who created him? How did he come to be? Does any religion offer the answer the answers to this? It's the same old stories of God creating man for some obscure and fantastic reason.

All religions are little more than fairy tales when examined with scientific curiosity. All the Gods of our planet exhibit behaviour/emotions that's so human in nature that it's laughable!

The Epicurean paradox, which was first asked by Epicurus in around 300 BC, has still not been answered by any religion satisfactorily so far!

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God? - Epicurus

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

You may call it a culture instead. But because this may be identified as a culture, as in way of life, there were still different types of cultural ways of life where either there was one God or many, that were followed by a different sets of people having different sets of belief systems. This, in my opinion and that of many others, can not be transformed under one belief system as many Indian Hindus insist, just because the one identification word given to all the people living in this geographic zone was Hindu or because it is thought that they all belonged to an identical historical culture or sub-culture thereof. For example the Indian constitution and Indian Supreme Court places Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists as a sect of Hinduism. Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists do not agree with such a categorization.

Many Hindus believe that Rig Veda is identified with monotheism but majority Hindus do not believe this. When majority Hindus do not believe that monotheism is Hindu in cultural essence, how can Shaivism and many other such beliefs can be identified as Hindu sub-sects.

I therefore identify such completely different cultural phenomenons as different beliefs and not part of Hindu culture.

This one is what i have read on another forum saying very much same thing :


Facts about the pre-Muslim ancestors of Pakistanis:

1. The word/term "Hindu/Hinduism" is a recent construct. It were the
Muslim invaders who for the first time in history imposed this foreign
term in South Asia to the countless distinct local religions. Not a
single pre-Muslim era Brahman, Buddhist, Jain, or any other South
Asian scripture/inscription mentions the word "Hindu/Hinduism".

2. Before the advent of Islam, the majority of people in the region of
Pakistan were Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and Animists/Pagans/Shamanists.
Brahmanists/Shaivites were a minority in Pakistan. Harappans ate beef,
buried the dead, had no Hindu temples/idols/deities, etc. RigVedic
Aryans forbade idolatory, ate beef, sacrificed cows, had no caste
system, most Hindu deities were absent among them, etc. Under Persian
rule, Zoroastrianism started to spread. Similarly, Greek Paganism
spread under the Greeks. Asoka brought Buddhism, which was later also
propagated along with Zoroastrianism and Animism/Shamanism/Paganism
under the Bactrians, Sakas, Parthians, and Kushans. White Huns
(Iranian Huns/Hepthalites) were not very fond of Buddhism.

3. A significant minority of Pakistanis are descendents of Arab,
Iranian, Turkic, Mughal and Afghan invaders/migrants, who just like
the rest of the ancestors of Pakistanis were Zoroastrians,
Animists/Pagans/Shamanists, and Buddhists before Islam.

4. Pre-1947 region of present-day Pakistan only had 15% non-Muslims,
out of which half were Sikhs. Many of remaining half that were Hindus
were actual migrants from the region of present day India during the
British rule. For example, most of the Hindus in pre-1947 Karachi had
migrated from Gujarat/Rajasthan during British rule because of
Karachi's economic boom then.


On the pre-1947 non-Muslim population in present day region of
Pakistan:

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

Other Sources:

According to the UN and other respected organizations, 12-24 million
is the total estimate of migrations from both India and Pakistan
(East Pakistan included) of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs combined at the
time of partition!!! So if Hindus and Sikhs are taken as 50% of that
figure, since there was an almost equal exchange of population, that
would make about 6-12 million Hindus-Sikhs in both East and West
Pakistan that migrated to India. Now, we know that there was almost
an equal (50% each) number of migrants leaving East and West Pakistan
(although Hindu population in East Pakistan was higher), that would
make the Hindu-Sikh population in West Pakistan about 3-6 million.
Now we know that West Pakistan's population at that time was about 25-
30 million which makes the total Hindu-Sikh population about 12-20%
(+ add the current 1.5%) in West Pakistan before partition. Also, it
is estimated that out of the non-Muslim population in West Pakistan,
+40% were Sikhs, so that leaves Hindus with even lesser numbers. We
know that Sikhs do not consider themselves as Hindus and they are
fighting for independence from India.

References:

Check your local library on the UN statistics on the country's
history of population demography, it will also confirm this. Other
sources such as the World Almanac clearly states: "More than 12
MILLION Hindu & Moslem refugees crossed the India-Pakistan borders in
a mass transferral of some of the 2 peoples during 1947; about
200,000 were killed in communal fighting". Also the Library of
Congress states: "The most conservative estimates of the casualties
were 250,000 dead and 12 MILLION to 24 MILLION refugees".


On the meaning and origins of Hinduism:

"The term Hinduism ... [ was ] introduced in about 1830 AD by
British writers. " [Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 `Hinduism' 519 ]

"The term Hindu was first imposed on south Asian nations by the
Afghan dynasty of Ghori in the 12th century; this term was never
used in south Asia prior to the Muslim era and is not even found in
early (pre-12th century AD) Brahmanical or Buddhist texts. Such a
term and concept has no historical depth in any social, religious,
ethnic or national sense past the 12th century when Mohammed Ghori
for the first time named his conquered subjects Hindus." [G. Singh,
Sakasthan and India, Toronto, 1999, p. 20]

"Hinduism, as a faith, is vague, amorphous, many-sided, all things
to all men. It is hardly possible to define it, or indeed to say
definitely whether it is a religion or not, in the usual sense of
the word." [Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, New Delhi,
1983, p.75]

"Frankly speaking, it is not possible to say definitely who is a
Hindu and what Hinduism is. These questions have been considered
again and again by eminent scholars, and so far no satisfactory
answer has been given." [Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu
Imperialism, Madras, 1992, p. 178]

"Hinduism defies definition... It has no specific creed." [Khushwant
Singh, India: An Introduction, New Delhi, 1990, p. 19]

"The more Hinduism is considered, the more difficult it becomes to
define it in a single phrase... A Hindu may have any religious
belief or none." [Percival Spear, India: A Modern History, Michigan,
1961, p.40]

"The term Hinduism ... [ was ] introduced in about 1830 AD by
British writers. " [Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 `Hinduism' 519 ]

"The term Hindu was first imposed on south Asian nations by the
Afghan dynasty of Ghori in the 12th century; this term was never
used in south Asia prior to the Muslim era and is not even found in
early (pre-12th century AD) Brahmanical or Buddhist texts. Such a
term and concept has no historical depth in any social, religious,
ethnic or national sense past the 12th century when Mohammed Ghori
for the first time named his conquered subjects Hindus." [G. Singh,
Sakasthan and India, Toronto, 1999, p. 20]

 

[ranjeet]

Well good for you guys, instead of convincing Indians I guess Pakistanis should first convinces themselves who exactly they were before Qasim came to the rescue dressed up as GREEN LANTERN.

 

[Nassr]

Your historical inaccuracies aside, what's your fascination with monotheism? What's so bad about polytheism and what's so good about monotheism?? Even supposing there is ONE God, who created him? How did he come to be? Does any religion offer the answer the answers to this? It's the same old stories of God creating man for some obscure and fantastic reason.

All religions are little more than fairy tales when examined with scientific curiosity. All the Gods of our planet exhibit behaviour/emotions that's so human in nature that it's laughable!

The Epicurean paradox, which was first asked by Epicurus in around 300 BC, has still not been answered by any religion satisfactorily so far!

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God? - Epicurus

Look, I have basically highlighted historical facts (you say inaccuracies) for a debate on historical aspects and not for a religious discussion as you are leaning towards. I have no fascination towards any religion in a history related contextual discourse.

 

[Indischer]

Look, I have basically highlighted historical facts (you say inaccuracies) for a debate on historical aspects and not for a religious discussion as you are leaning towards. I have no fascination towards any religion in a history related contextual discourse.

Firstly, they are very inaccurate indeed. Secondly, you seem hesitant to call a spade as a spade. Hinduism is a Pantheistic, polytheistic religion that was very prevalent in the areas that today comprise Pakistan. You seem to favour this notion that Pakistani people have always preferred a monotheistic religion and hence were easily swayed by the call of Islam. However, fact remains that your ancestors(taken in general) were once Polytheistic, atheistic(under Buddhism), Polytheistic again(Hindu resurgence in 7th century) before finally settling for a monotheistic religion. How and why is it so difficult to reconcile to this fact? Why spin fantastical distortions of history and weave them into a flawed narrative ?

 

[Nassr]

This one is what i have read on another forum saying very much same thing :


Facts about the pre-Muslim ancestors of Pakistanis:

1. The word/term "Hindu/Hinduism" is a recent construct. It were the
Muslim invaders who for the first time in history imposed this foreign
term in South Asia to the countless distinct local religions. Not a
single pre-Muslim era Brahman, Buddhist, Jain, or any other South
Asian scripture/inscription mentions the word "Hindu/Hinduism".

2. Before the advent of Islam, the majority of people in the region of
Pakistan were Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and Animists/Pagans/Shamanists.
Brahmanists/Shaivites were a minority in Pakistan. Harappans ate beef,
buried the dead, had no Hindu temples/idols/deities, etc. RigVedic
Aryans forbade idolatory, ate beef, sacrificed cows, had no caste
system, most Hindu deities were absent among them, etc. Under Persian
rule, Zoroastrianism started to spread. Similarly, Greek Paganism
spread under the Greeks. Asoka brought Buddhism, which was later also
propagated along with Zoroastrianism and Animism/Shamanism/Paganism
under the Bactrians, Sakas, Parthians, and Kushans. White Huns
(Iranian Huns/Hepthalites) were not very fond of Buddhism.

3. A significant minority of Pakistanis are descendents of Arab,
Iranian, Turkic, Mughal and Afghan invaders/migrants, who just like
the rest of the ancestors of Pakistanis were Zoroastrians,
Animists/Pagans/Shamanists, and Buddhists before Islam.

4. Pre-1947 region of present-day Pakistan only had 15% non-Muslims,
out of which half were Sikhs. Many of remaining half that were Hindus
were actual migrants from the region of present day India during the
British rule. For example, most of the Hindus in pre-1947 Karachi had
migrated from Gujarat/Rajasthan during British rule because of
Karachi's economic boom then.


On the pre-1947 non-Muslim population in present day region of
Pakistan:

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

Other Sources:

According to the UN and other respected organizations, 12-24 million
is the total estimate of migrations from both India and Pakistan
(East Pakistan included) of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs combined at the
time of partition!!! So if Hindus and Sikhs are taken as 50% of that
figure, since there was an almost equal exchange of population, that
would make about 6-12 million Hindus-Sikhs in both East and West
Pakistan that migrated to India. Now, we know that there was almost
an equal (50% each) number of migrants leaving East and West Pakistan
(although Hindu population in East Pakistan was higher), that would
make the Hindu-Sikh population in West Pakistan about 3-6 million.
Now we know that West Pakistan's population at that time was about 25-
30 million which makes the total Hindu-Sikh population about 12-20%
(+ add the current 1.5%) in West Pakistan before partition. Also, it
is estimated that out of the non-Muslim population in West Pakistan,
+40% were Sikhs, so that leaves Hindus with even lesser numbers. We
know that Sikhs do not consider themselves as Hindus and they are
fighting for independence from India.

References:

Check your local library on the UN statistics on the country's
history of population demography, it will also confirm this. Other
sources such as the World Almanac clearly states: "More than 12
MILLION Hindu & Moslem refugees crossed the India-Pakistan borders in
a mass transferral of some of the 2 peoples during 1947; about
200,000 were killed in communal fighting". Also the Library of
Congress states: "The most conservative estimates of the casualties
were 250,000 dead and 12 MILLION to 24 MILLION refugees".


On the meaning and origins of Hinduism:

"The term Hinduism ... [ was ] introduced in about 1830 AD by
British writers. " [Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 `Hinduism' 519 ]

"The term Hindu was first imposed on south Asian nations by the
Afghan dynasty of Ghori in the 12th century; this term was never
used in south Asia prior to the Muslim era and is not even found in
early (pre-12th century AD) Brahmanical or Buddhist texts. Such a
term and concept has no historical depth in any social, religious,
ethnic or national sense past the 12th century when Mohammed Ghori
for the first time named his conquered subjects Hindus." [G. Singh,
Sakasthan and India, Toronto, 1999, p. 20]

"Hinduism, as a faith, is vague, amorphous, many-sided, all things
to all men. It is hardly possible to define it, or indeed to say
definitely whether it is a religion or not, in the usual sense of
the word." [Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, New Delhi,
1983, p.75]

"Frankly speaking, it is not possible to say definitely who is a
Hindu and what Hinduism is. These questions have been considered
again and again by eminent scholars, and so far no satisfactory
answer has been given." [Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu
Imperialism, Madras, 1992, p. 178]

"Hinduism defies definition... It has no specific creed." [Khushwant
Singh, India: An Introduction, New Delhi, 1990, p. 19]

"The more Hinduism is considered, the more difficult it becomes to
define it in a single phrase... A Hindu may have any religious
belief or none." [Percival Spear, India: A Modern History, Michigan,
1961, p.40]

"The term Hinduism ... [ was ] introduced in about 1830 AD by
British writers. " [Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 `Hinduism' 519 ]

"The term Hindu was first imposed on south Asian nations by the
Afghan dynasty of Ghori in the 12th century; this term was never
used in south Asia prior to the Muslim era and is not even found in
early (pre-12th century AD) Brahmanical or Buddhist texts. Such a
term and concept has no historical depth in any social, religious,
ethnic or national sense past the 12th century when Mohammed Ghori
for the first time named his conquered subjects Hindus." [G. Singh,
Sakasthan and India, Toronto, 1999, p. 20]

@Proudpakistaniguy,

I am very grateful for very good post indeed. This adds to my knowledge and to what I had already posted. Thank you very much for this post.

The only thing that I tend to disagree with, is the mention that, "A significant minority of Pakistanis are descendents of Arab, Iranian, Turkic, Mughal and Afghan invaders/migrants." My research indicate that large majority of Pakistanis are descendants of the original inhabitants and a limited number of them are descendants of Arabs, Iranians, Turkic, Mughals and Afghans. When one start to add up the numbers these invaders brought with them over a period of time, it remains a miniscule of what were the original inhabitants and this is a fact and I am very confidant of this fact.

I thank you once again for a wonderful post.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

You should read more about your own history and Hinduism before creating such stupid threads. Quote any of your own words here on such subjects and they reek of ignorance.

Which stupid thread you are referring to? I have created only one topic which got closed because most of you felt insecure answering my questions. I was comparing you guys with those of British/Greek/Arabs/Persian/Turkish/mongol/Portuguese. What hindus or say native people of this land achieved in last 1000 years. Dont tell me you have ruled on this and that before the birth of Jesus christ lol I was just asking the reasons why/how these invaders conquered this land and managed to established their rule not for few few years but for thousand years? I was asking why native people slept so long and embraced their rule? What you have found stupid in this question?

And may I ask you one more thing? What's so wrong with idol worship? If you don't like idol worship, don't do it. As it is, the concept of God is after all man's creation.

What is wrong in idol worship? I will ask you to have a look at my signature to find the answer. You are going to scare human beings if you get scare by naturally occurring things like sky, water, earth or animals because they are in the list of God or some idols made by man. These things on the planets will die some day or after specific time. They cannot be God. God should not need humanly things like sleep, food, wife, son, daughter etc. Concept of God may be creation of mans mind in your case but its opposite in case of Islam. Well its different debate so better we stay on topic

 

[Nassr]

Firstly, they are very inaccurate indeed. Secondly, you seem hesitant to call a spade as a spade. Hinduism is a Pantheistic, polytheistic religion that was very prevalent in the areas that today comprise Pakistan. You seem to favour this notion that Pakistani people have always preferred a monotheistic religion and hence were easily swayed by the call of Islam. However, fact remains that your ancestors(taken in general) were once Polytheistic, atheistic(under Buddhism), Polytheistic again(Hindu resurgence in 7th century) before finally settling for a monotheistic religion. How and why is it so difficult to reconcile to this fact? Why spin fantastical distortions of history and weave them into a flawed narrative ?

Your facts are incorrect and are merely based on popular perceptions. And just because you have stated it, it does not become a fact. Secondly, most Indians immediately jump to the conclusion that because monotheism is being mentioned, it must somehow have links with Islam. The monotheism being practiced in this part had no linkages with Islam as a religion and in any case it was practiced much much before the advent of Islam which entered in this part of the world even later.

 

[Indischer]

Which stupid thread you are referring to? I have created only one topic which got closed because most of you felt insecure answering my questions. I was comparing you guys with those of British/Greek/Arabs/Persian/Turkish/mongol/Portuguese. What hindus or say native people of this land achieved in last 1000 years. Dont tell me you have ruled this and that before the birth of jesus christ lol I was just asking the reasons why/how these invaders conquered this land and managed to establish their rule not for few few years but for thousand years? I was asking why native people slept so long and embraced their rule? What you have found stupid in this question?


What is wrong in idol worship? I will ask you to have a look at my signature to find the answer. You are going to scare human beings if you get scare by naturally occurring things like sky, water, earth or animals because they are in the list of God or some idols made by man. These things on the planets will die some day or after specific time. They cannot be God. God should not need humanly things like sleep, food, wife, son, daughter etc. Concept of God may be creation of mans mind in your case but its opposite in case of Islam. Well its different debate so better we stay on topic

Dude, you're so immersed into your ideology that it's starting to look dogmatic. Please go through the thread again. Plenty of people have given very good answers on your questions, to which you have paid no heed and continued with this idiotic reasoning that you alone seem to be completely convinced about. I am not interested in rehashing my words again.

Regarding idol worship, what makes you think that when a Hindu sees an image of Shiva or Kali or any other God, he doesn't feel reassured and ready to serve his faith?? Have you come across any Hindu who has said that his Gods are mortal in any way? To Hindus too, Gods are immortal and to stand up to any wrong done to him, his faith or his Nation is but natural.

It's not Islam alone that has this effect. All religions/beliefs have this effect on men. Atheists are no different either! The bloodiest war ever, WW 2, was fought fiercely contested by the Soviets and Nazis, who held atheistic beliefs. Most of the War Cries in our Army have a distinctly religious tinge to them. If it's "Allah-o-Akbar" for the Pak Fauj, it's "Jai Maha Kali, Aayo Gorkhali!" or "Jo Bole So Nihaal, Sat Shri Akaal!" etc etc in the Indian Army. 

Your facts are incorrect and are merely based on popular perceptions. And just because you have stated it, it does not become a fact. Secondly, most Indians immediately jump to the conclusion that because monotheism is being mentioned, it must somehow have links with Islam. The monotheism being practiced in this part had no linkages with Islam as a religion and in any case it was practiced much much before the advent of Islam which entered in this part of the world even later.

Whatever tickles you the best, dude. As I've said before, you're held back by your present beliefs from accepting your past. I have no problems with that. But please don't go around reinventing Hinduism also to suit your needs. This isn't the first time someone has twisted history to suit themselves and it certainly won't be the last.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

Regarding idol worship, what makes you think that when a Hindu sees an image of Shiva or Kali or any other God, he doesn't feel reassured and ready to serve his faith??
Have you come across any Hindu who has said that his Gods are mortal in any way? To Hindus too, Gods are immortal and to stand up to any wrong done to him, his faith or his Nation is but natural.

What make me think of that? I already answer it. Where were the slogan of bajrang bali, jai mata etc during the period of invasions, conversions and slavery in the past 1000/1500 years? Compare the population of local people with those of invaders. What they were lacking ? I don't think any other hude nation or people embraced such rule of others for such long time

 

[Indischer]

What make me think of that? I already answer it. Where were the slogan of bajrang bali, jai mata etc during the period of invasions, conversions and slavery in the past 1000/1500 years? Compare the population of local people with those of invaders. What they were lacking ? I don't think any other hude nation or people embraced such rule of others for such long time

Dude, READ THE PREVIOUS POSTS!!

 

[Nassr]

Whatever tickles you the best, dude. As I've said before, you're held back by your present beliefs from accepting your past. I have no problems with that. But please don't go around reinventing Hinduism also to suit your needs. This isn't the first time someone has twisted history to suit themselves and it certainly won't be the last.

And how do you know what my beliefs are. I am not reinventing Hinduism or anything else here, I am merely stating facts as presented in history. In my opinion it is you who somehow have problems accepting facts because these facts apparently unhinge your own faith in whatever manner you have lived and understood various related paradigms.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

You know brother. When someone disrespect India and use the words like fucked, chamar, etc etc. We can only say as said in the Army.......... 'ITTA BADA HIDUSTAN......JHAAT BHAR KA PAKISTAN' ...... So better show respect coz recieving disrespect isnt a tough thing for a country of Pakistani stature.

Bro this is not disrespect, you should be proud of being austroloid hybrid chamar. Building civilization was not your ancestors thing, read my sig for more info.

Tata bye bye

 

[Indischer]

And how do you know what my beliefs are. I am not reinventing Hinduism or anything else here, I am merely stating facts as presented in history. In my opinion it is you who somehow have problems accepting facts because these facts apparently unhinge your own faith in whatever manner you have lived and understood various related paradigms.

If my beliefs are apparent by my posts, doesn't it apply to you? Or wait, I forgot that the Radcliffe Line is so special that only our beliefs or lack thereof are revealed in our posts, not yours. Oh Magical and Supernatural Radcliffe Line, I bow down to thee in true monotheistic fashion!

 

[WAR-rior]

Bro this is not disrespect, you should be proud of being austroloid hybrid chamar. Building civilization was not your ancestors thing, read my sig for more info.

Tata bye bye

mIm .