Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[Nassr]

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.

Interestingly, you state that the idea of India is based on cultural unity and only recently translated into political unity, albeit with some loss of land in the west and east which I believe is a reference to 1947.

What you are stating about the political unity is not very different from what I have been stating that the political unity of sub-continent was only forced during the Mauryan, Muslim and British rules. And beside these three occasions, India was never politically united with Indus valley region, which is now called Pakistan.

One of the best books about the culture of Pakistan that I have read, has been “Pakistan: The Cultural Heritage” written by Ahmed Shuja Pasha. It is an excellent formulation which describes the separate cultural entity of Pakistan since historical times.

Could you please elaborate as to what do you understand and connote when you state, the Indian culture. This may emerge into a very interesting discussion.

 

[Indischer]

Interestingly, you state that the idea of India is based on cultural unity and only recently translated into political unity, albeit with some loss of land in the west and east which I believe is a reference to 1947.

What you are stating about the political unity is not very different from what I have been stating that the political unity of sub-continent was only forced during the Mauryan, Muslim and British rules. And beside these three occasions, India was never politically united with Indus valley region, which is now called Pakistan.

One of the best books about the culture of Pakistan that I have read, has been “Pakistan: The Cultural Heritage” written by Ahmed Shuja Pasha. It is an excellent formulation which describes the separate cultural entity of Pakistan since historical times.

Could you please elaborate as to what do you understand and connote when you state, the Indian culture. This may emerge into a very interesting discussion.

Yup. No debate on the fact that every region of India has a history of it's own.
To me, anyone who's a resident of the Indian subcontinent(geographical trait), was a part of Indic societies(societies that were an amalgamation of Dharmic and local cultural and religious beliefs) and spoke Indic languages(Indo-Aryan and Dravidian) is an Indian.
Many groups in the indian North-East do not fall under this category, and I understand that it was due to British expansionism that they're part of India today. But I'm certain that all of today's Bangladesh and most of today's Pakistan will come under this definition. Islam may have diluted the second trait, but language and some uniquely Indian traditions reinforce the shared identity.

 

[Nassr]

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.

This thread was to highlight the historical aspects regarding the populist and false Indian assertion which has also been supported by many Indian writers and historians that Hinduism was the popular religion in areas of Pakistan. History does not support this assertion. This was challenged by the Indian posters as probably it somehow also challenged Indian identity syndrome which they feel emanates from the Indus Valley Civilization, the core of which correctly shifted to Pakistan in 1947. However, history does not also support that the Indus Valley Civilization was Vedic and thus Hindu in essence which also negates India’s populist identity syndrome.

Our identity is not perceived but is factual. I do agree with you that many Pakistanis also need to understand the facts of history as laid bare.

 

[ranjeet]

Our identity is not perceived but is factual. I do agree with you that many Pakistanis also need to understand the facts of history as laid bare.

Well a consensus on this is must amongst Pakistanis till then you will have populist and false Indian assertion being paddled around. (which might be right or wrong)

 

[Nassr]

Yup. No debate on the fact that every region of India has a history of it's own.
To me, anyone who's a resident of the Indian subcontinent(geographical trait), was a part of Indic societies(societies that were an amalgamation of Dharmic and local cultural and religious beliefs) and spoke Indic languages(Indo-Aryan and Dravidian) is an Indian.
Many groups in the indian North-East do not fall under this category, and I understand that it was due to British expansionism that they're part of India today. But I'm certain that all of today's Bangladesh and most of today's Pakistan will come under this definition. Islam may have diluted the second trait, but language and some uniquely Indian traditions reinforce the shared identity.

Sub-continent was never India till different non-Indians, during a phase of history, for the purpose of temporary geographical identification, started calling it India, Hindu, Hindustan etc. This happened during various phases of historical evolution. Initially, it had nothing to do with religious or cultural ethos – it was merely geographic in premise. As the history evolved with emergence of empires and shifting of power through politico-religious entities, the cultural progression also evolved. And as the cultural domain is dynamic in nature, it also evolved and changed through the shifting politico-religious entities. Those politico-religious entities which could sustain themselves during the vagaries and tribulations of history maintained their nature and state whereas those that could not faded out. In the areas of Pakistan, Hinduism and Buddhism couldn’t sustain themselves as an entity. In areas of India Buddhism could not sustain itself either. Therefore, over a period of history, the two main sub-continental entities, Indus and Ganges domains managed to maintain there segregated and independent way of life in whatever manner they chose.

To state that because of temporary geographical identification of India which incidentally was an area east of river Indus, the areas of present day Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka etc should be categorized as Indic, Dharmic or Hindutvadi, in my opinion is inappropriate to say the least. Such categorization in my opinion smacks of the superiority syndrome which many Indians project by stating that their religion, culture and domain is superior to that of others.

For the purpose of nation building within the environs of Republic of India it is acceptable. However, when such theme is projected outside the borders of Republic of India, it would be met with stiff resistance and till the time Indians learn to accept this fact, the region would remain at cross cultural purpose without peaceful co-existence.

Well a consensus on this is must amongst Pakistanis till then you will have populist and false Indian assertion being paddled around. (which might be right or wrong)

The problem here is that it is the Indians who project false politico-cultural asserions. And as long as the Indians continue to project such falsehood, the peaceful co-existance would remain a dream. Indians would have to accept the divergent, different and segregated nature of the sub-continent without claiming and resorting to the supramatist Indic, Dharmic or Hindutvadi terminologies outside their politico-cultural geographical domain.

 

[Indischer]

Sub-continent was never India till different non-Indians, during a phase of history, for the purpose of temporary geographical identification, started calling it India, Hindu, Hindustan etc. This happened during various phases of historical evolution. Initially, it had nothing to do with religious or cultural ethos – it was merely geographic in premise. As the history evolved with emergence of empires and shifting of power through politico-religious entities, the cultural progression also evolved. And as the cultural domain is dynamic in nature, it also evolved and changed through the shifting politico-religious entities. Those politico-religious entities which could sustain themselves during the vagaries and tribulations of history maintained their nature and state whereas those that could not faded out. In the areas of Pakistan, Hinduism and Buddhism couldn’t sustain themselves as an entity. In areas of India Buddhism could not sustain itself either. Therefore, over a period of history, the two main sub-continental entities, Indus and Ganges domains managed to maintain there segregated and independent way of life in whatever manner they chose.

To state that because of temporary geographical identification of India which incidentally was an area east of river Indus, the areas of present day Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka etc should be categorized as Indic, Dharmic or Hindutvadi, in my opinion is inappropriate to say the least. Such categorization in my opinion smacks of the superiority syndrome which many Indians project by stating that their religion, culture and domain is superior to that of others.

For the purpose of nation building within the environs of Republic of India it is acceptable. However, when such theme is projected outside the borders of Republic of India, it would be met with stiff resistance and till the time Indians learn to accept this fact, the region would remain at cross cultural purpose without peaceful co-existence.



The problem here is that it is the Indians who project false politico-cultural asserions. And as long as the Indians continue to project such falsehood, the peaceful co-existance would remain a dream. Indians would have to accept the divergent, different and segregated nature of the sub-continent without claiming and resorting to the supramatist Indic, Dharmic or Hindutvadi terminologies outside their politico-cultural geographical domain.

Agree with you on most counts. My only contention is in your sweeping categorization of today's Pakistan being different than today's India since ancient times. In fact, your histories are intertwined by the overlapping rule of successive kingdoms and today, it's you guys and North Indians who share more similarities than we South Indians and north Indians, right from language to customs, culture and cuisine.
I don't find it an attempt to project our superiority when Indian posters talk about india & Pakistan being same before They're also suggesting that Pakistanis are equal partners of Indian history and legacy. Of course, you mustn't base your assumption on the opinion of those who're here only to inflame.

 

[Nassr]

Agree with you on most counts. My only contention is in your sweeping categorization of today's Pakistan being different than today's India since ancient times. In fact, your histories are intertwined by the overlapping rule of successive kingdoms and today, it's you guys and North Indians who share more similarities than we South Indians and north Indians, right from language to customs, culture and cuisine.
I don't find it an attempt to project our superiority when Indian posters talk about india & Pakistan being same before They're also suggesting that Pakistanis are equal partners of Indian history and legacy. Of course, you mustn't base your assumption on the opinion of those who're here only to inflame.

What I said was that since over 9000 years of known history, Pakistani landmass has remained a distinctly separate geographic and political entity except for the Maurya, Muslim and British rules where Indus and Genges domains were governed as one geographic and political entity. Because the era of Muslim and British rules were contiguous in time, some overlapping of language, culture and cuisine etc, in some contiguous areas would certainly be the case. Some dialects of Punjabi and Sindhi spoken in certain areas of Pakistan are similar and easier to understand. Interestingly, the dialect of Punjabi spoken in Faisalabad which is further away from the border in Punjab, is closer to the one spoken in Jallandhar etc which is also away from the border. The culture is certainly different, though with some similarities. There are similarities between spoken Urdu and Hindi (non BJP type which most Indians may also find difficulty understanding). However the spoken Urdu in India’s Muslim areas is markedly different in so many ways. While in India, those who knew that I was a Muslim would greet me with Adaab which I still do not know how to respond to as it is a rare greeting except amongst some families here in Pakistan.

And I am not basing my opinion on assumptions, irrespective to the flame baiters populating the forum. A large majority of Indian historians and writers do have much different viewpoint concerning history and legacy than those in Pakistan. In Pakistan the same history is viewed much differently than India. Even our heroes in the run up to the independence are different, which to many Indians is a complete surprise.

And I do have a fair understanding of the nature of difference between north and south India as I have travelled in both parts. Many a times it amused me a great deal in addition to enhancing my understanding of the environment there.

One thing which surprises me a great deal is the amount of hate, anger and acrimony against Pakistanis and Pakistan that I came across in India as compared to here in Pakistan where it has diminished considerably over a period of time. In my personal opinion, unless we learn to accept each others historical, political, religious and cultural ethos, a peaceful existence may not become a reality anytime soon.

 

[GoodBoy]

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.

WHY DID Hindu/Sikhs/Buddhists migrated to India????? Learn some history first and come back. You forced them by killing/converting them.

So don't spread false propaganda.You are even killing Muslims(Shias/Ahmedias) in addition to other minorities like Hindu/Sikhs/Buddhists/Christians since you wanna make a SUNNI caliphate.

 

[bronxbull]

invention of a time machine is the only solution to this thread.

RIP.

 

[Nassr]

WHY DID Hindu/Sikhs/Buddhists migrated to India????? Learn some history first and come back. You forced them by killing/converting them.

So don't spread false propaganda.You are even killing Muslims(Shias/Ahmedias) in addition to other minorities like Hindu/Sikhs/Buddhists/Christians since you wanna make a SUNNI caliphate.

If you think that it were only the Hindus and Sikhs who suffered, you are grossly mistaken or have not been told the complete story.

The atrocities were initially perpetrated against the Muslims in Indian Punjab and hundreds of thousands were killed and large tracts of areas were ethnically cleansed of Muslims. When the news of such atrocities reached and the refugees migrated to Muslim majority areas which were later announced to be part of Pakistan, there was retaliation. Atrocities were committed on both sides. However, the number of Muslims killed was much larger.

Punjab was divided on the insistence of Master Tara Singh, who on the stairs of Punjab Assembly took out his Kirpan and stated that Pakistan would be built over his dead body. The book “Betrayal of Sikh Nation By Master Singh With British Documents of Transfer of Power” written by Ram Singh explains the devious part played by Congress leaders which led to initiation of such atrocities. The atrocities in Punjab and Jammu region started much before the partition, which also led to the Pathans lashkars going to Kashmir to support and save the Muslims. Gurdaspur which was a Muslim majority area was given to India at the last moment as this was the only land link India had with Kashmir and the Muslims of Gurdaspur were massacred en-masse with few if at all survived and migrated. And all this happened much before partition.

Congress knew that they could not stop the creation of Pakistan. Though publically Congress leaders like Nehru, Patel, Azad continuously spoke against the creation of Pakistan, privately they had agreed to the partition with Mountbatten. Because they knew about the partition much in advance, the ethnic cleansing and atrocities against Muslims was planned and started much earlier. The Muslims in Pakistan retaliated when the news of such atrocities started reaching Muslim majority areas of Pakistan. And later the trains of the dead started arriving at Lahore railway station. Literally, complete trains with only dead bodies onboard and not a living soul. The partition was bloody, and there is no doubt about it.

Though Congress leaders knew about the partition of India, yet Nehru said “Pakistan is a fantastic nonsense,” Sardar Patel said, “Sword for sword,” Gandhi said, “Division of India over my dead body” and yes he did die but at the hands of his own. One has to read Dr. Syama Parsad Mukherjee, who states that when he met Mountbatten and expressed his views against creation of Pakistan, he told him that probably Dr. Mokharjee was not aware of the intentions of senior Congress leaders as Nehru and Sardar Patel had already agreed to partition of India. Alarmed, Mukharjee met Gandhi and asked him if he also agreed to the partition. Gandhi said, he was helpless as Nehru and Patel did not listen to him anymore. This is the same Mr. Patel whom BJP wants to project as the loh purush sidelining the Bapu.

You guys come over here and make outlandish comments as if the others know nothing and present emotional outbursts bereft of historical facts. And before you accuse Pakistan, please do learn as to what actually is happening inside India. Take out your forces from NE and IOK and you will find 6-7 Indian states declaring independence within a fortnight followed by the falling domino engulfing the south which would refuse to continue feeding the cow belt Brahmin any further. Aryavarta would go back to its originality from where it actually started and as indicated in your earlier scriptures.

I would therefore request you to please shut up and learn to move on with whatever you have before you lose even that.

invention of a time machine is the only solution to this thread.

RIP.

Please contact HG Wells.

And we all need to remain at peace (RIP) to further the peace, if at all.

 

[bronxbull]

haha Nassr Saab,

Aap ko Cheddne mein bada mazaa aata hain.

 

[Nassr]

haha Nassr Saab,

Aap ko Cheddne mein bada mazaa aata hain.

You are welcome.

 

[Vinod2070]

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.

Keep telling yourself that.

Not that it helps.

You need the reassurance the very next second.

And the next...

We have pity more than contempt for this state of affairs.

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.

You don't seem to realize that you are justifying the murder, rapine, genocide and slavery of your own ancestors at the hands of primitive, uncivilized barbarians.

By claiming that they also fought and killed each other!

Without going into the wrong history of what you think is a jahiliyah period (and those ancestors being jahils), it seems you would also justify the Mongols killing the millions of Arabs and Muslims by the same token.

And because Muslims are killing the maximum number of Muslims due to all those sectarian issues, you would think others can kill them too without compunctions!

It is a strange mindset to any outside observer.

For you folks, it is just another day! You don't even realize how ridiculous you sound as it has always been like that for you folks.

Anyway, it is early stages of stage 2. Give yourself a few decades...

 

[Contrarian]

Keep telling yourself that.

Not that it helps.

You need the reassurance the very next second.

And the next...

We have pity more than contempt for this state of affairs.



You don't seem to realize that you are justifying the murder, rapine, genocide and slavery of your own ancestors at the hands of primitive, uncivilized barbarians.

By claiming that they also fought and killed each other!

Without going into the wrong history of what you think is a jahiliyah period (and those ancestors being jahils), it seems you would also justify the Mongols killing the millions of Arabs and Muslims by the same token.

And because Muslims are killing the maximum number of Muslims due to all those sectarian issues, you would think others can kill them too without compunctions!

It is a strange mindset to any outside observer.

For you folks, it is just another day! You don't even realize how ridiculous you sound as it has always been like that for you folks.

Anyway, it is early stages of stage 2. Give yourself a few decades...

What I dont get is why are you trying to educate the man.
Let him and his ilk believe whatever they want to believe.
Earlier they were all the descendents of Arabs because Indians had all the South Asian legacy. This is an escape mechanism than admitting that their ancestors got defeated and converted. By accepting this theory, suddenly, instead of being the conquered, they become the conqueror's.

When Arabs treat them like $hit and dont even give them citizenship, today they are the descendents of IVC and Indians are not.

Tomorrow, they would come up with a third theory and then exclude Indians from it.

Does it make a difference to us in India? Would it make the Sunni's stop killing Shias and Christians and Hindus in Pakistan?

No. Let them keep these dreams and fancies - it gives them an escape. Good for them. You dont need to try and educate them constantly.

 

[Nassr]

Keep telling yourself that.

Not that it helps.

You need the reassurance the very next second.

And the next...

We have pity more than contempt for this state of affairs.



You don't seem to realize that you are justifying the murder, rapine, genocide and slavery of your own ancestors at the hands of primitive, uncivilized barbarians.

By claiming that they also fought and killed each other!

Without going into the wrong history of what you think is a jahiliyah period (and those ancestors being jahils), it seems you would also justify the Mongols killing the millions of Arabs and Muslims by the same token.

And because Muslims are killing the maximum number of Muslims due to all those sectarian issues, you would think others can kill them too without compunctions!

It is a strange mindset to any outside observer.

For you folks, it is just another day! You don't even realize how ridiculous you sound as it has always been like that for you folks.

Anyway, it is early stages of stage 2. Give yourself a few decades...

Instead of resorting to rhetorical and baseless expression, please prove your viewpoint with logical explanation and response. The facts and figures that I quoted point squarely to the reality that existed at the time of independence in 1947. The fact remains that the Hindus and Sikhs initiated a planned pogrom of mass killings and ethnic cleansing of Muslims much before the Muslims retaliated. In Jammu region alone, 500,000 Muslims were forced out of their homes out of which 200,000 men, women and children were killed. This was undertaken after ethnic cleansing and mass murders of Muslims from Indian Punjab had been undertaken. And all this happened much before the partition. I have quoted references and sources to support my viewpoint. Did you people ever highlight these facts in India – no you didn’t – never and it is a shame.

We are discussing history here and not the current environment. However, The Naxals have killed thousands of Indians inside India so far, communal violence since 1947 has resulted in deaths of thousands of minorities in India and as a testimony over 140 armed secessionist groups are fighting for secession from India, the highest such number in any one country in the world. Indians destroyed Muslim mosques in hundreds in Indian Punjab and are still at it, Babri Mosque destruction is one such example. The holiest of Sikh Shrines, the Golden Temple was destroyed by Indian Army, KPS Gill identified as the Butcher of Punjab by Sikhs is hailed as a hero by Indian Hindus. In the after math of Indira’s murder, over 3000 innocent Sikh men, women and children were killed in Delhi alone. Modi oversaw killing of over 2000 Muslims in the aftermath of Godhra.

Please go and discuss your intellectual buffoonery including the various stages of your own madness amongst yourself and Ms. Sati Savitri, please go and prove your virginity somewhere else, as this is not the place.