Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[scorpionx]

Herodotus could not even find the difference between River Kabul and River Indus. He is more famous for the dog sized ants that he recounts from the Indian desert which were used to dig out the gold. I am surprised that you seek Herodotus for historical references.

Herodotus never visited India.Most of his assessments were based on other traveler's accounts. But he had traveled the Nile delta for years.So it depends which part of his "the histories" you can rely on and which part you can't.

 

[Nassr]

Yes, it is about interpretation and it is about facts. I think you are wrong on many facts and the interpretation is heavily jaundiced.

Dharmic format and part of Hinduism are different things. We have a concept of panth (different paths to the divine) which doesn't exist in exclusivist/supremacist religions like Islam for which all non Muslims are automatically hell bound.

You are not really expected to understand this very basic difference between Dharmic religions and yours. This is a part of your very being, just as not hating anyone (or condemning them to eternal hellfire) for being born into any religion is part of my very being. I can't look at such a supposed divine as merciful and will only laugh at his demands to call him "most merciful".



Yet, these "Muslims" call each other "wajib-ul-qatl" and make sure the journey to eternal hellfire is quickened. It is within Sunnis and Shia as well, leave alone between Shia Vs Sunni vs Ahmedia...

And you see no such thing in any Dharmic religions (supposed different religions, really just different panths).



You are wrong. Check the post#617 regarding the difference between the 1941 and 1951 census and the almost complete ethnic cleansing that it denotes.

An ethnic cleansing that puts Bosnia to shame.



They were forced out as part of the ethnic cleansing. And reducing in population share ever since.

In India we had almost the same Muslim share at the time of partition and you see a different trend because we are not bigots and because we have a great Dharmic tolerant civilization.

This is akin to a pot calling the kettle black. Actually by stating that every other religion that emanated from India is basically a part of and is a sub-set of Hinduism is the supremacist approach. Only those who follow the supra-religion can understand the complexity and the commoner can not fathom the fathomless. The classic manner in which the Brahman reigned supreme and others including the women, were not even allowed to study Sanskrit and unworthy of reading and reciting the Vedas and other scriptures. And if that could not keep the commoner in the dirt, invent the cast system and condemn the commoner to untouchability.

You are comparing the UN compiled data with a piece of information without any reference. If you want to understand what Ethnic Cleansing was, please visit the Muslim majority areas of Indian Punjab like Gurdaspur and compare the Muslim data. Also go to Jammu region and read about actual Ethnic cleansing of over 500,000 Muslims out of which 200,000 men, women and children were murdered in cold blood by the forces of Kashmir, Alwar, Kapurthala etc. look at your own muck filled backyard before you start accusing others. And it has not been happening since around 47, your history is filled with perpetration of such atrocities. The Brahmin persecution of Buddhists and Buddhism is a clear example since the earlier times. Such instances puts the whole world to shame. And then you guys feel proud of Mahabharata, which according to the calculations of your own scholars resulted in killings of over a billion people.

No you are not just bigots, you are Maha-bigots because not only that you distort reality, you project your supra-religiosity by pronouncing almost a whole nation as untouchables and deny the minorities to even proclaim their religiosity. Every now and then you mete out community punishment on the minorities for a crime of a few – 3000 Sikhs killed in Delhi alone after Indira’s murder – 2000 Muslims killed in the aftermath of Godhara train disaster, old Mosques are destroyed because some believed that a God was born there, Christians are burnt alive and murdered because they are propagating their religion – and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

And the accusations mounted on this thread, for the mere reason that historical records were presented for stating facts that Hinduism was never a popular religion in Pakistan since the earliest times. And I wonder why could not we discuss history for the sake of history.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Vedas are one part of Hinduism.. It's not like Islam where religion start with some book... There was hinudism before Vedas compiled..

I know I was just being sarcastic

 

[Thirdfront]

Dude, why don't you do a cursory search yourself before asking me or making stupid comments here?
1. The first mention of Shiva is in the Krishna Yajurveda. The qualities of Rudra, a RigVedic God are also embodied in the Shiva that we worship today.
2. There is enough doubt amongst scholars about the location of RigVedic Saraswati, given it's importance. many point to the Helmand River in modern day Afghanistan, which during Avestan times was called the Haraxvaiti, cognate with our Saraswati. The Helmand River too is lavishly praised in Avesta like the Saraswati in RigVeda.
3. Have you even bothered to see the so-called OM seal of IVC?? It looks nothing like the OM symbol we use and most scholars have trashed this idea. First, go see yourself what some pseudo-scholars are claiming to be OM on an IVC seal. The Aryans haven't moved out of India once they came in. Hence, the migrating tribes had to know about Swastika much before they set out to Europe, Armenia etc. And FYI, the earliest swastika symbol is seen in the Vinca, a South West European neolithic culture.
4. As I've said before, it's because the mimamsa school itself states that they're an astika school of thought interested in examination of the nature of Dharma as elucidated in the Vedas. They were actually started to counter the rising influence of the Nastika school of thought.

I am not here to define what constitutes Hinduism and what doesn't. I'm simply stating what eminent scholars have already told about IVC and it's contribution to Hinduism. I have presented my side of the argument taking their opinion into count. What to interpret from this and what not is best left to you.

1. Err, my question is where did Rudra/Ishwara/Shiva/Pashupati came from?
2. Enough doubt about Saraswati, OK, what about Sindhu, Sutlej and other rivers mentioned in Rig Veda that flow in today's Punjab (Where IVC also existed)? Why doesn't Rigveda talk about aryan homeland?
3. I have, have you? Scholars don't agree on anything about IVC except that it existed and they don't agree on anything. Where is the connection between Vinca and IVC?
4. It doesn't answer the original question, how can nastika's be called non-hindus. Who termed them as non-hindus? There were different schools of thought figthing each other (intellectually)? yes, but were they different religion? No.

You failed to mention that most of the scholars agree that IVC contributed to hinduism. Only question remaining is how much? You also failed mention that most of the scholars do not agree on definition of hinduism. But you jump right into the conclusion that IVC were not hindus and anybody who don't fit your definition are not hindus.

 

[Nassr]

1. Err, my question is where did Rudra/Ishwara/Shiva/Pashupati came from?
2. Enough doubt about Saraswati, OK, what about Sindhu, Sutlej and other rivers mentioned in Rig Veda that flow in today's Punjab (Where IVC also existed)? Why doesn't Rigveda talk about aryan homeland?
3. I have, have you? Scholars don't agree on anything about IVC except that it existed and they don't agree on anything. Where is the connection between Vinca and IVC?
4. It doesn't answer the original question, how can nastika's be called non-hindus. Who termed them as non-hindus? There were different schools of thought figthing each other (intellectually)? yes, but were they different religion? No.

You failed to mention that most of the scholars agree that IVC contributed to hinduism. Only question remaining is how much? You also failed mention that most of the scholars do not agree on definition of hinduism. But you jump right into the conclusion that IVC were not hindus and anybody who don't fit your definition are not hindus.

From the archeological, historical and socio-cultural evidence, it becomes clearly evident that Vedic literature based cultural traditions are better identified with Post Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) cultural traditions. Let me highlight some of the more pronounced facts in this regard:

• The formation of IVC’s cultural entities can be identified between 3300-1900 BC. Contrarily, the Historians identify formulation of Vedic traditions between 1500-600 BC.
• The IVC’s culture was identified in the Indus Valley basin, KPK, Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and limited portions of Indian Punjab, Gujarat and Rajasthan. These cultural moorings however do not find an extension into central and lower Gangese Valley in the eastern and central Indian plains. Contrarily, the traditions abound in Vedic culture extends all over Pakistan.
• The decline of IVC traditions started after 2000-1900 BC and little of it was identified around 1300 BC. However, the Vedic traditions sustained its development even to the early historic era and shaped into a state-based urban environment much much later in the history.
• The Vedic cultural tradition do gel with the chiefdom based rural Post-Indus cultures as they also use rice, horse and iron etc. However, it also displays a distinct difference with the IVC for it being an urban civilization, whereas the Vedic Hindu culture was pronounced for the absence of fortified cities, town planning and drainage, monumental art and architecture of burnt bricks, advanced specialization and sea trade, use of seals, weights, measures and script and the custom of burying the dead in cemeteries.

An attempt aimed at presenting a distorted version of history through identification of fire places as fire -altars, waste pits as sacrificial pits in Harappan era sites and the imaginary reading of Sanskrit legends on Indus seals is nothing but clear fabrication of historical and archeological evidence. Such falsehood was presented in the manner because the presenters believed that India is a Hindu nation and has Hindu culture in continuity from Vedic Aryans and they themselves wanted to see it that way, which however is not supported by evidence.

 

[Vinod2070]

This is akin to a pot calling the kettle black. Actually by stating that every other religion that emanated from India is basically a part of and is a sub-set of Hinduism is the supremacist approach. Only those who follow the supra-religion can understand the complexity and the commoner can not fathom the fathomless. The classic manner in which the Brahman reigned supreme and others including the women, were not even allowed to study Sanskrit and unworthy of reading and reciting the Vedas and other scriptures. And if that could not keep the commoner in the dirt, invent the cast system and condemn the commoner to untouchability.

You are comparing the UN compiled data with a piece of information without any reference. If you want to understand what Ethnic Cleansing was, please visit the Muslim majority areas of Indian Punjab like Gurdaspur and compare the Muslim data. Also go to Jammu region and read about actual Ethnic cleansing of over 500,000 Muslims out of which 200,000 men, women and children were murdered in cold blood by the forces of Kashmir, Alwar, Kapurthala etc. look at your own muck filled backyard before you start accusing others. And it has not been happening since around 47, your history is filled with perpetration of such atrocities. The Brahmin persecution of Buddhists and Buddhism is a clear example since the earlier times. Such instances puts the whole world to shame. And then you guys feel proud of Mahabharata, which according to the calculations of your own scholars resulted in killings of over a billion people.

No you are not just bigots, you are Maha-bigots because not only that you distort reality, you project your supra-religiosity by pronouncing almost a whole nation as untouchables and deny the minorities to even proclaim their religiosity. Every now and then you mete out community punishment on the minorities for a crime of a few – 3000 Sikhs killed in Delhi alone after Indira’s murder – 2000 Muslims killed in the aftermath of Godhara train disaster, old Mosques are destroyed because some believed that a God was born there, Christians are burnt alive and murdered because they are propagating their religion – and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

And the accusations mounted on this thread, for the mere reason that historical records were presented for stating facts that Hinduism was never a popular religion in Pakistan since the earliest times. And I wonder why could not we discuss history for the sake of history.

If you can't see the obvious difference between India and Pakistan and an exclusivist/ supremacist religion versus the tolerant Dharmic religions, don't worry. The cause is known and well recognized. It is called weltanschauung.

Psychologists say that even hard facts can be denied when people subscribe to a radically different vision of the world. A glimpse of the current Pakistani weltanschauung — the mental makeup which selects and filters facts before they reach the conscious brain — can be had through the lives of the three young US-educated Pakistanis mentioned above.

Why do they pick on us Pakistanis? – The Express Tribune

You were never talking history in this thread. It is a make believe version of what you are taught in your Pakistan studies and a figment of your imagination.

My suggestion is: be happy with your two nation theory and continue calling your ancestors jahils and their rapists and murderers as your heroes.

There is just no getting away from that.

Else, it is a case of neither here nor there.

 

[Nassr]

If you can't see the obvious difference between India and Pakistan and an exclusivist/ supremacist religion versus the tolerant Dharmic religions, don't worry. The cause is known and well recognized. It is called weltanschauung.



Why do they pick on us Pakistanis? – The Express Tribune

You were never talking history in this thread. It is a make believe version of what you are taught in your Pakistan studies and a figment of your imagination.

My suggestion is: be happy with your two nation theory and continue calling your ancestors jahils and their rapists and murderers as your heroes.

There is just no getting away from that.

Else, it is a case of neither here nor there.

I already answered the pacifist tolerance of your so-called Dharmic content by appropriate references.

And please take your psychological pooh paah elsewhere. I never called my ancestors jahils as they were not.

For rapes and murders, you just have to open your eyes to your own surroundings and read your own newspapers for the daily occurring.

I just historically proved that Hinduism was not the majority religion in Pakistan since thousands of years anf therefore, Hindus were not ancestors to majority of us Pakistanis. And Hindus only include Hindus and not Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and earlier monotheists.

 

[Vinod2070]

I already answered the pacifist tolerance of your so-called Dharmic content by appropriate references.

And please take your psychological pooh paah elsewhere. I never called my ancestors jahils as they were not.

For rapes and murders, you just have to open your eyes to your own surroundings and read your own newspapers for the daily occurring.

I just historically proved that Hinduism was not the majority religion in Pakistan since thousands of years anf therefore, Hindus were not ancestors to majority of us Pakistanis. And Hindus only include Hindus and not Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and earlier monotheists.

You proved nothing other than your obsession with the Dharmic religion of your ancestors.

And your identity crisis which drives this obsession.

This anger against Hinduism is nothing but self loathing. A trait of many Muslim converts who feel a need to prove themselves all the time.

You are not alone in this and I hope you can get better with time.

 

[Nassr]

You proved nothing other than your obsession with the Dharmic religion of your ancestors.

And your identity crisis which drives this obsession.

This anger against Hinduism is nothing but self loathing. A trait of many Muslim converts who feel a need to prove themselves all the time.

You are not alone in this and I hope you can get better with time.

I did prove that Hinduism was not the majority religion since the earliest times in Pakistan. And this was only a historical interpretation of events and happenings and nothing more.

I do not have an obsession of Dharmic religion and neither do I have any identity crisis. This is your misconception. The mere fact that a historically referenced thread was presumed to be against Hinduism portrays the shallow minded response some of you gentlemen resorted to. My idea was never to undermine any belief.

The known history of Pakistan evolved since over 9000 years ago and I am a proud owner of my heritage. I wish you the same and hope that you seek your identity in your own environment and not in some one else' heritage.

 

[Ajatashatru]

You will be surprised to find out that there actually are many many times more Buddhist structures than Hindu structures that are present in Pakistan.

No there are not. As for your claims of Hinduism not being in Pak, about 20% of population of what is now Pak was Hindu in 1941 but it hardly had any Buddhist population. Buddhism did exist in Pak, but the only regions in South Asia where Buddhism has survived in majority are Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Ladakh, Arunachal, Chittagong hill tracts, parts of Nepal, parts of Himachal etc but not Pak. BTW Buddhism is part of Indian civilization hence you are contradicting yourself by saying Pak was not part of India and Indian civilization.

India did not have any civilization. The IVC was and is a Pakistani heritage. Thank you for stating that civilization does not mean political union - unity in diversity does not qualify as a civilization in earnest.

I don't need to argue on this with you. I already said neutral sources call India one of the oldest civilizations and do not talk about any Pak civilization or heritage. The truth is for the world to see.

We are correcting the history to bring out the true perspective and not the hardline sham created by some people in India.

Not only India but also the rest of the world.

An unproven historical fallacy.

I never thought it that way but that guy seems to have reached a good point. Vedas praise Hindu deities. They would only be written by people if the deities were already worshiped. Furthermore, names of many Vedic deities have already been traced to proto Indo-European roots which means the deities' names existed before Vedas were written down. After all Vedas are first "recorded" texts of Hinduism. People will only record something they already did. Good thinking @Black Widow

 

[Thirdfront]

From the archeological, historical and socio-cultural evidence, it becomes clearly evident that Vedic literature based cultural traditions are better identified with Post Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) cultural traditions. Let me highlight some of the more pronounced facts in this regard:

• The formation of IVC’s cultural entities can be identified between 3300-1900 BC. Contrarily, the Historians identify formulation of Vedic traditions between 1500-600 BC.
• The IVC’s culture was identified in the Indus Valley basin, KPK, Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and limited portions of Indian Punjab, Gujarat and Rajasthan. These cultural moorings however do not find an extension into central and lower Gangese Valley in the eastern and central Indian plains. Contrarily, the traditions abound in Vedic culture extends all over Pakistan.
• The decline of IVC traditions started after 2000-1900 BC and little of it was identified around 1300 BC. However, the Vedic traditions sustained its development even to the early historic era and shaped into a state-based urban environment much much later in the history.
• The Vedic cultural tradition do gel with the chiefdom based rural Post-Indus cultures as they also use rice, horse and iron etc. However, it also displays a distinct difference with the IVC for it being an urban civilization, whereas the Vedic Hindu culture was pronounced for the absence of fortified cities, town planning and drainage, monumental art and architecture of burnt bricks, advanced specialization and sea trade, use of seals, weights, measures and script and the custom of burying the dead in cemeteries.

An attempt aimed at presenting a distorted version of history through identification of fire places as fire -altars, waste pits as sacrificial pits in Harappan era sites and the imaginary reading of Sanskrit legends on Indus seals is nothing but clear fabrication of historical and archeological evidence. Such falsehood was presented in the manner because the presenters believed that India is a Hindu nation and has Hindu culture in continuity from Vedic Aryans and they themselves wanted to see it that way, which however is not supported by evidence.

Where did you copy-paste this from? I have seen multiple indology forums containing same post with different user names.... all of it BS though, for the reasons explained in previous posts...

 

[Indischer]

1. Err, my question is where did Rudra/Ishwara/Shiva/Pashupati came from?
2. Enough doubt about Saraswati, OK, what about Sindhu, Sutlej and other rivers mentioned in Rig Veda that flow in today's Punjab (Where IVC also existed)? Why doesn't Rigveda talk about aryan homeland?
3. I have, have you? Scholars don't agree on anything about IVC except that it existed and they don't agree on anything. Where is the connection between Vinca and IVC?
4. It doesn't answer the original question, how can nastika's be called non-hindus. Who termed them as non-hindus? There were different schools of thought figthing each other (intellectually)? yes, but were they different religion? No.

You failed to mention that most of the scholars agree that IVC contributed to hinduism. Only question remaining is how much? You also failed mention that most of the scholars do not agree on definition of hinduism. But you jump right into the conclusion that IVC were not hindus and anybody who don't fit your definition are not hindus.

1. What do you mean where he came from? Didn't I make myself clear when I said Rudra, a RigVedic God's qualities, were later merged with Shiva's in Krishna Yajurveda? Pashupati was also Rudra's quality as mentioned in RigVeda(Pushan is another God of Animals as mentioned in RigVeda). So yeah, all these names of Shiva came from the Vedas!
2. How did you assume that the RigVeda does not describe the original Aryan Homeland?? Heard of the elixir called Soma(cognate with Avestan Haoma)? It's believed now that this was prepared from the plant Ephedra, a shrub that does not grow in India, but in Iranian highlands and other parts of Central Asia. It's fair to say the RigVeda describes all the rivers of modern-day Afghanistan as well.
3. Precisely my point! The Swastika is not an exclusive IVC symbol. The fact that IVC and Vedic lore both record the Swastika then does not mean that it was incorporated into Vedas only from IVC.
4. Perhaps you should pose this question to Hindu priests who denounced the Nastikas and also the surviving Nastika traditions of Buddhism and Jainism on whether they're Hindus. I have nothing more to add on this as I'm neither.

LOL you can also believe that Vedas are not pat of Hinduism and actually it was some alien religion which died and vanished in thin air, Hinduism actually stated when Aasaram Bapu revealed the lal kitab amrit to the mankind

Go ahead. I'm not stopping you from getting cozy with Asaram Bapu!

 

[Fireurimagination]

Go ahead. I'm not stopping you from getting cozy with Asaram Bapu!

Well you're the RigVeda/IVC expert..so he will fancy you more, you can tell him about Vedas and he can tell you about lal kitab amrit

 

[Indischer]

Well you're the RigVeda/IVC expert..so he will fancy you more, you can tell him about Vedas and he can tell you about lal kitab amrit

Yet another piece of Illogical Reasoning from your side? Why am I not surprised?
btw seriously, no hard feelings bro. Our discussion was earnest from both sides and was productive in my opinion.

 

[Slayer786]

I assume you are talking of the non Muslim population of West Pakistan pre partition.

So according to the fact, by 1951 the hindu population was refuced significantly. Use your head, that only means that the majority of the hindus migrated to the remaining India. As migration was still allowed at that time.
Also, at that time there were a million deaths and many muslims also lost their lives at that time during the partition.
First look at your forefather's deeds then accuse others.