Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[Nassr]

see in hindu scripture the wars (assume you refer to the mahabharatha) were philosophical with a worldy setting/context. victory of good over evil.
in islam jihad is a war of believers and non believers. vast difference. you can be a crooked muslim despot killing nonbelievers but Islam absolves you of any crime. todays jihad is just crime and terror and evil.

The basic scripture Rig Veda and others as well, mention wars as primary themes, including the Mahabharata which though an epic is almost accepted as a scripture. Therefore wars are central to Hindu religion as it may, irrespective of the intended lessons drawn.

Contrarily, Jihad is not only about waging wars, it is also waged against social and societal evils. And it is also not against only the non-believers. One of the primary Caliphs, Hazrat Ali waged Jihad against a Muslim sect called the Khwarjites.

The concept of a religious war is accepted in all major religions including Hinduism. Even the third battle of Panipat was proclaimed as a religious war by the leader and the speech declaring this as a Dharma Yudh has been recounted in a book titled, Later Mughal History of Punjab by Hari Ram Gupta.

 

[Fireurimagination]

The first question is obviously untrue. I've cited plenty of evidences to prove the other questions that you've asked. feel free to go through them again

The thing is for every 10 researchers that say IVC's religion was Hinduism there are 10 who say it wasn't. So nothing has been proven conclusively yet nor my theory nor yours. I believe what I state is logical and has enough evidence to support it hence I believe in the same you otherwise.

 

[funtoosh]

The basic scripture Rig Veda and others as well, mention wars as primary themes, including the Mahabharata which though an epic is almost accepted as a scripture. Therefore wars are central to Hindu religion as it may, irrespective of the intended lessons drawn.

Contrarily, Jihad is not only about waging wars, it is also waged against social and societal evils. And it is also not against only the non-believers. One of the primary Caliphs, Hazrat Ali waged Jihad against a Muslim sect called the Khwarjites.

The concept of a religious war is accepted in all major religions including Hinduism. Even the third battle of Panipat was proclaimed as a religious war by the leader and the speech declaring this as a Dharma Yudh has been recounted in a book titled, Later Mughal History of Punjab by Hari Ram Gupta.

rig veda never mentions anything about wars. secondly none of the vedas talk about war. Mahabharata is not a part of vedas. It is a story that tries to answer philosophical questions. (yes I believe that Mahabharata the physical war never happened - its metaphorical)
again, even in hindu scriptures the demon is the evil incarnate - do you really think there was a demon who could fly in the skies? So we also have similar physical allegories to represent a line of thinking as is the casse , I am sure with Jihad.
But its a fact that the quran and hadith lays down ways to strip the conquered non believers off their wealth. that's never been said in any hindu scriptures. which is why my contention is that islam was NEVER about god, but rallying people in the name of god for conquest. and its been a good ploy. even after 1500 years people are foolish enough to blow themselves in the name of allah.

 

[Nassr]

rig veda never mentions anything about wars. secondly none of the vedas talk about war. Mahabharata is not a part of vedas. It is a story that tries to answer philosophical questions. (yes I believe that Mahabharata the physical war never happened - its metaphorical)
again, even in hindu scriptures the demon is the evil incarnate - do you really think there was a demon who could fly in the skies? So we also have similar physical allegories to represent a line of thinking as is the casse , I am sure with Jihad.
But its a fact that the quran and hadith lays down ways to strip the conquered non believers off their wealth. that's never been said in any hindu scriptures. which is why my contention is that islam was NEVER about god, but rallying people in the name of god for conquest. and its been a good ploy. even after 1500 years people are foolish enough to blow themselves in the name of allah.

I think you need to study more and much more before you comment about aspects you apparently have no knowledge about. Your shallow knowledge about your own faith and that of others merely highlights your uneducated and narrow bias and nothing more. Also, I would not like to compare the religions in the manner that you do, as I do not think it is appropriate to highlight aspects which may embarrass you.

There were battles fought, for wealth/cattle, for domination of religious and social practices, for fertile-lands, for offspring and most important of all – Water.

There were two major wars. The first one was the war between the Panchala King Divodasa and the Dasa King Sambara and the other Dasaranjana War or the War of Ten Kings. An internecine war between the allies of King Sudas, a descendant of Divodasa and his enemies – an alliance of 10 Kings from other Arya tribes.

Much of the history and battles in the Rig Veda are suggestive of the ascendancy of the Puru (one amongst the five tribes of Nahusa, the others being Yadu, Turvasa, Anu and Druhyu) initially and then later the Bharatas who emerged as the most powerful amongst the Puru.

The two great kings of the Rig Veda – Divodasa and his grand-son Sudas were Bharatas. Between them, they had subjugated the non-Arya Dasa tribes and all the other principle Arya tribes including all the other branches of the Puru.

Battle of the Ten Kings, Dasrajana, is a battle alluded to in Mandala 7 of the Rigveda (hymns 18, 33 and 83.4-8). The battle itself took place on the banks of the River Ravi (Pakistan). The warriors of Sudas are described as white-robed, wearing hair-knots on the right side of their heads, having flying banners (RV 7.83.2), while the ten kings do not sacrifice. It appears (7.18.5) that Sudas managed to cross the Ravi safely, while his foes, trying to pursue, were scattered by a flood and either drowned or were slaughtered by Sudas' men.

Kavaṣa and the Druhyu were overwhelmed by Indra while still in the water (7.18.10). The slain warriors of the Anu and Druhyus are numbered 6,666 (7.18.14).

In the aftermath of the battle, the Bharatas under Sudas (7.33.6), received tribute from the Ajas, the Sigrus and the Yaksus, and Indra destroyed the seven fortifications of the enemies, and gave the treasures of Anu to Sudas (7.18.13). 7.18.17 stresses that this was a victory against all odds, compared to a lamb defeating a lion. The belligerents were:

• Alinas: One of the tribes defeated by Sudas at the Dasarajna, and it was suggested that they lived to the north-east of Nuristan, because the land was mentioned by the Chinese pilgrim Hiouen Thsang.
• Anu: Some place them in the Paruṣṇī (Ravi) area.
• Bhrigus: Probably the priestly family descended from the ancient Kavi Bhrigu. Later, they are related to the composition of parts of the Atharva Veda (Bhṛgv-Āṅgirasa) .
• Bhalanas: Fought against Sudas in the Dasarajna battle. Some scholars have argued that the Bhalanas lived in the Bolan Pass area.
• Druhyus: Some align them with the Gandhari (RV I 1.126.7).
• Matsya are only mentioned in the RV (7.18.6), but later in connection with the Śālva.
• Parsu: The Parśu have been connected by some with the ancient Persians.
• Purus: one of the major tribal confederations in the Rigveda.
• Panis: also the name of a class of demons; later associated with the Scythians.

 

[Nassr]

What is this, new term by you.. Shaivism is entirely within vedic structure.


What is that????Shaivism automatically becomes new religion???? Spilled coffee on the keyboard. If it can't be repaired, I will send you a bill....... ha ha ha ha .......

Which coffee was it - Vedic or Hindu.

 

[Vinod2070]

Oh man, the obsession with Dharmic religions from some of our apostates!

We don't kill our apostates like their new fangled ideology though.

 

[Nassr]

Oh man, the obsession with Dharmic religions from some of our apostates!

We don't kill our apostates like their new fangled ideology though.

There are no Dharmic religions. This terminology has only been used by Indian Hindus in order to turn Hinduism into a superior mother of all religions that were supposedly evolved from Hinduism and within the so-called geographical bounds of India. This despite the fact that the majority followers of all such religions have been repeatedly stating that their religions were and are not part of Hinduism and neither evolved from Hinduism. Yet the Indian Hindus continue to insist and persist with their misplaced beliefs.

It is stated time and time again that we the Indian Hindus do not persecute and kill those who have converted or perceived to have converted from Hinduism. Hindu early history of India however, is replete with major instances of massive religious persecution and genocide of Jains and Buddhists. Such was the level of persecution and genocide that many of their Kings including from Mauryan Empire were appalled to see such violence that they themselves converted to Jainism and Buddhism.

During different time-periods, Jainism and Buddhism were once the majority religions in India. They were persecuted by Brahmins to such an extent that there are hardly any Buddhists who survive in India and Jains probably resorted to Shiite Takiyya to barely survive. The persecution continues even to this day.

To top it all, it is indeed surprising that those who themselves perpetrated massive atrocities against their own so-called Dharmic religions, are now accusing the Muslims of doing the same. If Muslims had done what Hindu Brahmins did to Buddhism and Jainism, Hindus would certainly not have been in such a majority in India. In any case, Hinduism was never a popular religion or entity in Pakistan since the earliest times and those already in minority and not considered a threat of any kind are not required to be persecuted.

It is indeed shameful that instead of confronting their unpleasant past, the Indian Hindus hide the bare facts of history and blame others for the crimes against humanity that they themselves committed.

 

[Nassr]

Pakistan from 3000 BC to the present:


1. Indus Valley Civilization: 3000-1500 B.C. i.e. about 1500 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

2. Aryan period: 1500-522 B.C. i.e. about 978 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

3. Small semi-independent states: 522-326 B.C. i.e. about 196 yrs. Under the suzerainty of Iran's Kayani (Achaemenian) Empire.

4. Conquered by Alexander and remained under his successor: 326-300 B.C. i.e. about 26 yrs. Under Greek rulers, not part of India.

5. Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule.

6. Graeco-Bactrian period: 200-100 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

7. Saka-Parthian period: 100 B.C.- 70 A.D. i.e. about 170 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

8. Kushan rule (1st phase): 70-250 A.D. i.e. about 180 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdom ruled over major portion of north India.

9. Kushan rule (2nd phase): 250-450 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

10. White Huns and allied tribes (1st phase): 450-650 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdoms ruled over parts of north India.

11. White Huns (2nd phase--- mixed with other races): 650-1010 A.D. i.e. about 360 yrs. Independent Rajput-Brahmin Kingdoms, not part of India.

12. Ghaznavids: 1010-1187 A.D. i.e. 177 yrs. Part of Ghaznavid empire, separate from India.

13. Ghorid and Qubacha periods: 1187-1227 A.D. i.e. about 40 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

14. Muslim period (Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Syeds, Lodhis, Suris and Mughals): 1227-1739 A.D. i.e. about 512 yrs. Under north India based MUSLIM govts.

15. Nadir Shah and Abdali periods: 1739-1800 A.D. i.e. about 61 yrs. Iranian and Afghan suzerainty, not part of India.

16. Sikh rule (in Punjab, NWFP and Kashmir), Talpur rule in Sind, Khanate of Kalat in Baluchistan: 1800-1848 A.D. i.e. about 48 yrs. Independent states, not part of India.

17. British rule: 1848-1947 A.D. i.e. about 99 yrs (1843-1947 in Sind). Part of India under FOREIGN rule.

18. Muslim rule under the nomenclature of Pakistan: 1947-present. Independent, not part of India.


The above table reveals that during the 5000 years of Pakistan's known history, this country was part of India for a total period of 711 yrs of which 512 yrs were covered by the MUSLIM period and about 100 years each by the Mauryan (mostly BUDDHIST) and British (CHRISTIAN) periods. Can anybody agree with the Indian 'claim' that Pakistan was part of India and that partition was unnatural? It hardly needs much intelligence to understand that Pakistan always had her back towards India and face towards the countries on her west. This is true both commercially and culturally.

Pakistan from 3000 B.C. to the Present

 

[GoodBoy]

Since 1947, the Hindu population of Pakistan decreased from 20% to 1% now. I don't know whether is it is due to less popularity of Hinduism or forcible conversion and persecution of Hindus

Forcible conversion and persecution of Hindus led to sudden decrease.

As a fact no minority is safe and even Muslims Sects like Shia/Ahmedias etc are prosecuted by Sunni Majority.

 

[Vinod2070]

Pakistan from 3000 BC to the present:


1. Indus Valley Civilization: 3000-1500 B.C. i.e. about 1500 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

2. Aryan period: 1500-522 B.C. i.e. about 978 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

3. Small semi-independent states: 522-326 B.C. i.e. about 196 yrs. Under the suzerainty of Iran's Kayani (Achaemenian) Empire.

4. Conquered by Alexander and remained under his successor: 326-300 B.C. i.e. about 26 yrs. Under Greek rulers, not part of India.

5. Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule.

6. Graeco-Bactrian period: 200-100 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

7. Saka-Parthian period: 100 B.C.- 70 A.D. i.e. about 170 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

8. Kushan rule (1st phase): 70-250 A.D. i.e. about 180 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdom ruled over major portion of north India.

9. Kushan rule (2nd phase): 250-450 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

10. White Huns and allied tribes (1st phase): 450-650 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdoms ruled over parts of north India.

11. White Huns (2nd phase--- mixed with other races): 650-1010 A.D. i.e. about 360 yrs. Independent Rajput-Brahmin Kingdoms, not part of India.

12. Ghaznavids: 1010-1187 A.D. i.e. 177 yrs. Part of Ghaznavid empire, separate from India.

13. Ghorid and Qubacha periods: 1187-1227 A.D. i.e. about 40 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

14. Muslim period (Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Syeds, Lodhis, Suris and Mughals): 1227-1739 A.D. i.e. about 512 yrs. Under north India based MUSLIM govts.

15. Nadir Shah and Abdali periods: 1739-1800 A.D. i.e. about 61 yrs. Iranian and Afghan suzerainty, not part of India.

16. Sikh rule (in Punjab, NWFP and Kashmir), Talpur rule in Sind, Khanate of Kalat in Baluchistan: 1800-1848 A.D. i.e. about 48 yrs. Independent states, not part of India.

17. British rule: 1848-1947 A.D. i.e. about 99 yrs (1843-1947 in Sind). Part of India under FOREIGN rule.

18. Muslim rule under the nomenclature of Pakistan: 1947-present. Independent, not part of India.


The above table reveals that during the 5000 years of Pakistan's known history, this country was part of India for a total period of 711 yrs of which 512 yrs were covered by the MUSLIM period and about 100 years each by the Mauryan (mostly BUDDHIST) and British (CHRISTIAN) periods. Can anybody agree with the Indian 'claim' that Pakistan was part of India and that partition was unnatural? It hardly needs much intelligence to understand that Pakistan always had her back towards India and face towards the countries on her west. This is true both commercially and culturally.

Pakistan from 3000 B.C. to the Present

It only reveals identity crisis and the need to justify the two nation theory.

Every bloody day, every bloody second.

And the again...

What a miserable life!

 

[MohitV]

so far the most successful thread i have seen

 

[Indischer]

Pakistan from 3000 BC to the present:


1. Indus Valley Civilization: 3000-1500 B.C. i.e. about 1500 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

2. Aryan period: 1500-522 B.C. i.e. about 978 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

3. Small semi-independent states: 522-326 B.C. i.e. about 196 yrs. Under the suzerainty of Iran's Kayani (Achaemenian) Empire.

4. Conquered by Alexander and remained under his successor: 326-300 B.C. i.e. about 26 yrs. Under Greek rulers, not part of India.

5. Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule.

6. Graeco-Bactrian period: 200-100 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

7. Saka-Parthian period: 100 B.C.- 70 A.D. i.e. about 170 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

8. Kushan rule (1st phase): 70-250 A.D. i.e. about 180 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdom ruled over major portion of north India.

9. Kushan rule (2nd phase): 250-450 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

10. White Huns and allied tribes (1st phase): 450-650 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdoms ruled over parts of north India.

11. White Huns (2nd phase--- mixed with other races): 650-1010 A.D. i.e. about 360 yrs. Independent Rajput-Brahmin Kingdoms, not part of India.

12. Ghaznavids: 1010-1187 A.D. i.e. 177 yrs. Part of Ghaznavid empire, separate from India.

13. Ghorid and Qubacha periods: 1187-1227 A.D. i.e. about 40 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

14. Muslim period (Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Syeds, Lodhis, Suris and Mughals): 1227-1739 A.D. i.e. about 512 yrs. Under north India based MUSLIM govts.

15. Nadir Shah and Abdali periods: 1739-1800 A.D. i.e. about 61 yrs. Iranian and Afghan suzerainty, not part of India.

16. Sikh rule (in Punjab, NWFP and Kashmir), Talpur rule in Sind, Khanate of Kalat in Baluchistan: 1800-1848 A.D. i.e. about 48 yrs. Independent states, not part of India.

17. British rule: 1848-1947 A.D. i.e. about 99 yrs (1843-1947 in Sind). Part of India under FOREIGN rule.

18. Muslim rule under the nomenclature of Pakistan: 1947-present. Independent, not part of India.


The above table reveals that during the 5000 years of Pakistan's known history, this country was part of India for a total period of 711 yrs of which 512 yrs were covered by the MUSLIM period and about 100 years each by the Mauryan (mostly BUDDHIST) and British (CHRISTIAN) periods. Can anybody agree with the Indian 'claim' that Pakistan was part of India and that partition was unnatural? It hardly needs much intelligence to understand that Pakistan always had her back towards India and face towards the countries on her west. This is true both commercially and culturally.

Pakistan from 3000 B.C. to the Present

LOL. When was India politically united except for a while under the Mauryans? The Mughals too did not wholly control India, as parts of South and Eastern India continued to elude them.

You ought to know this list is trashy as most of the kingdoms you've mentioned ruled over areas that omitted many parts of modern Pakistan & included lot of modern Indian territory. The idea of India is based on cultural unity & has only recently translated into true political unity, albeit with the loss of some land in the West and East.

 

[Nassr]

Forcible conversion and persecution of Hindus led to sudden decrease.

As a fact no minority is safe and even Muslims Sects like Shia/Ahmedias etc are prosecuted by Sunni Majority.

Hinduism was neither popular nor was in majority in Pakistan since the earliest times. Even during the times of Brahmin persecution of Buddhism, the areas that comprised Pakistan did not convert en masse to Hinduism. At the time of partition in 1947, according to the UN figures the population of West Pakistan was:

W. Punjab: 9% Hindu, 11% Sikh

Sindh: 10% Hindu, 5% Sikh

NWFP: 2.5% Hindu, 2.5% Sikh

Baluchistan: 3% Hindu

Over 50% of these figures migrated to India around the time of partition. Please stop deliberately spreading false and incorrect information.

 

[Nassr]

It only reveals identity crisis and the need to justify the two nation theory.

Every bloody day, every bloody second.

And the again...

What a miserable life!

The identity crisis is not being faced by the people of Pakistan. It is the Indians who have an identity crisis as they are the ones that identify themselves with someone else’ identity, which is not theirs in the first place.

Why are you people so angry on creation of Pakistan, which was a separate entity since the earliest times. Because you lost the source of your identity which you thought is in Pakistan. This is just like - jinn ki jaan jis cheez mein thi wo cheez jinn ke paas nahin rahi aur ab jinn ka jeena bhi mushtkil hai. Ab pachtaway kya hovat jab chirian chug gayeing khet.

Please find your own identity from within your own culture and your own geography.

 

[ranjeet]

The identity crisis is not being faced by the people of Pakistan. It is the Indians who have an identity crisis as they are the ones that identify themselves with someone else’ identity, which is not theirs in the first place.

Why are you people so angry on creation of Pakistan, which was a separate entity since the earliest times. Because you lost the source of your identity which you thought is in Pakistan. This is just like - jinn ki jaan jis cheez mein thi wo cheez jinn ke paas nahin rahi aur ab jinn ka jeena bhi mushtkil hai. Ab pachtaway kya hovat jab chirian chug gayeing khet.

Please find your own identity from within your own culture and your own geography.

Well you opened this thread so it's you who is not sure about your identity, and are constantly trying to reinforce your perceived identity. We are fine with what we have, please educate the Pakistani awaam before convincing Hindus.