Who is a Hindu?

[joey]

There's a lot of mistakes in this thread. First of all I'd like to make one thing totally clear. What the Indians are referring to here as "India" is actually the region of Pakistan, the Indus. In fact not much of the history of what is being talking about refers to Bharat proper, as I call it.

Btw, it's my first post..Hi to all.

Wrong, There has been huge archeological finding of harappan civilization in UP, There existed similar finding spanning to old times in south as well, in Srilanka as well, pointing out to parallel developements of many cultures.

So I actually have not referred India but subcontinent in general. Spanning across parts of different countries.

 

[joey]

Totally wrong Srirangan. Hindu is derived from the Vedic word "Sindhu", Avestan is a separate language classification used in a different locale during Vedic times. The precursor of modern Persian/Fars was Old Persian, with Avestan developing alongside itm but Avestan language grew to be extinct with no related descendant (see any language map).

It is generalization of you think Hindu is derived from the only word Sindhu, I'll give you some of the possible leaneage of the name.

1. Sapta Sindhu becomes Hapta Hindu is one by the Greeks.

2. Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word Hindu as “chore [thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], and ghulam [slave].” In another dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (Part One, p. 615) the Persian meaning of the word Hindu is further described as barda (obedient servant), sia faam (balck color) and kaalaa (black).

3. The idea that rishis of old, several thousand years ago, also called central India Hindustan, and the people who lived there Hindus. The following verse, said to be from the Vishnu Purana, Padma Purana and the Bruhaspati Samhita states that,

Aaasindo Sindhu Paryantham Yasyabharatha Bhoomikah
MathruBhuh Pithrubhoochaiva sah Vai Hindurithismrithaah

4. Another verse reads as,

Sapta sindhu muthal Sindhu maha samudhram vareyulla Bharatha bhoomi aarkkellamaano Mathru bhoomiyum Pithru bhoomiyumayittullathu, avaraanu hindukkalaayi ariyappedunnathu.

Both of these verses more or less indicate that whoever considers the land of Bharatha Bhoomi between Sapta Sindu and the Indian Ocean as his or her motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu. However, here we also have a ancient name of India mentioned, which is Bharata Bhoomi. “Bhoomi” (or Bhumi) means Mother Earth, but Bharata is the land of Bharata or Bharata-varsha, which is the land of India. In numerous Vedic references in the Puranas, Mahabharata and other Vedic texts, the area of India is referred to as Bharata-varsha or the land of Bharata and not as Hindustan.

5. Another,

Himalayam Samaarafya Yaavat Hindu Sarovaram
Tham Devanirmmitham desham Hindustanam Prachakshathe

Himalyam muthal maha samudhram vareyulla
devanirmmithamaya deshaththe Hindustanam ennu parayunnu

These again indicate that the region between the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean is called Hindustan.

6. In the Rig Veda, Bharata is referred to as the country of “Sapta Sindhu”, i.e. the country of seven great rivers. This is, of course, acceptable. However, exactly which book and chapter this verse comes from needs to be clarified. Nonetheless, the word “Sindhu” refers to sea in Vedas, and not merely to the specific river called “Sindhu” or place called Sindh.

There is a famous quote, 'bindu Bindu mil ke hota hai Sindhu'.

7. Ancient Persians referred to Bharat as “Hapta Hind”, as recorded in their ancient classic “Bem Riyadh”. So this is another reason why some scholars came to believe that the word “Hindu” had its origin in Persia.

8. Another theory is that the name “Hindu” by Mr. A. Krishna Kumar of Hyderabad, He cites an argument from the book Self-Government in India by N. B. Pavgee, published in 1912. The author tells of an old Swami and Sanskrit scholar Mangal Nathji, who found an ancient Purana known as Brihannaradi in the Sham village, Hoshiarpur, Punjab. It contained this verse:

himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram
hindusthanamiti qyatam hi antaraksharayogatah

It means, The country lying between the Himalayan mountains and Bindu Sarovara (Cape Comorin sea) is known as Hindusthan by combination of the first letter ‘hi’ of ‘Himalaya’ and the last compound letter ‘ndu’ of the word ‘Bindu'.
-------------------------------------------------------

These are only a few, of many. Thus Hinduism is better known as Sanatana-dharma. We dont call our religion as religion or some sort of ity and ism, because the doctrines of that of 'ity and 'ism are different. We call it dharma and adharma. You wont find proper English of the same.

The same mistake people makes while terming us as idol worshippers when it is actually Icon or Murthi worshipper.

sometime, You cannot find suitable translation of the exact text in English.

The etimology of ism and ity are here,

ity:

Main Entry: -ity
Function: noun suffix
Inflected Form(s): plural -ities
Etymology: Middle French -ité, from Latin -itat-, -itas, from -i- (stem vowel of adjs.) + -tat-, -tas -ity; akin to Greek -tEt-, -tEs -ity
: quality : state : degree

ism:

Main Entry: ism
Pronunciation: 'i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: -ism
1 : a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
2 : an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief

Agreed. Hindu was in reference to Sindhu, which was the area of modern day Pakistan, not India. However

Wrong, the culture of sindh was spreaded over What is present day Pakistan to punjab, Gujrat and later some other places of UP as well.

And do you know Sindhu means Seas in Veda as well other than just rivers? So you have to bring which part of Rig Veda and in which context your talking of.

what the people of the Indus practised was not Hinduism, but Vedism, a completely different religion/way of living to modern day Hinduism in India

Right and Wrong, while Vedism and Hinduism as practiced today has definite differences in them, Way of living in Hinduism has nothing to do with the religion of Hinduism because there is no such prequisite way of living in Hinduism, thus the way of living may have changed but the philosophy havent.

Hinduism has evolved Absorbing Vedism as one of its many compiled books. it doesnt means Hinduism as it is today is same as Vedism per se, same as it doesnt means Hinduism doesnt has Vedism in it per se.

So overall I agree with you but not in absolute generalization sense if you say Vedism and Hinduism are different and draw a absurd lineage of Indra without knowing the proper philosophical aspect.

You can try living here and get some bunch of Vedic teachings and convert to Vedism, learn them and live life according to them, I can assure you you wont find much difference with that of the local hindus living here, other than difference in local customs.

There are places in India who practices stern Vedism (Arya Samaj), there are peoples who practices Local customs and keeps the philosophy same, so dont mix way of living with that of philosophy.

Modern day Hinduism and traditional Vedism in ancient Pakistan (Saptha Sindhu, or as the Greeks called it Haptha Hindu), are not the same

On way of living aspects same or not - Depends on where you live and how you live but not same in most places, It isnt same with contemporary Dravidian parallel cultures of that time as well which were no less developed than harappan ones in short. Dravidian terminology here is used not as genetical/philosophical pool but cultural and linguistical pool.

On Philosophical aspect same or not - Again see above one is from absorbing other, but has evolved over the years as well.

Christianity/Islam is nothing without old testausments etc isnt it?

Indra was an Aryan God of the Vedic Aryans, the central figure of the Rig Veda, that became reduced to a secondary figure in some of the later Dravidianized texts that were written from Bharat.

What are those texts?
How do you know reducing the role of a god gives you the evidence of Hinduism not having lineage with Vedism? We consider the gods themselves to be later than Creation.

You dont even understand even the basic philosophy of Hinduism. Dogmatic Theological interpration would never work for interprating Dharmic faiths.

The Aryan invasion only occurred into what is today Pakistan, and Punjab of India. Everywhere else in the subcontinent is pretty much Dravidian.

There was no Aryan invasion occurred, but you guys in Pakistan were the one to invade other places, not invade I'd rather say per se but yes transfer of genetical pool.

Here the theory of non Aryan invasion is based on subcontinent as a whole which includes Sri Lanka and Pakistan and India.

My non-AIT is based on the euro-centric thought of AIT.

Genetics

??

The term Aryan is currently a linguistical grouping. The 72% "Aryan" India figure is simply a statistics used to denote Aryan speaking Dravidians. However, the Aryans were a historical group of people, as the Rig Veda, which was written in Pakistan attest to.

Aryan-Dravidian linguistic grouping is what I agree with. Rig Veda was not written, it was compiled.


Ps : I'll have to check if there are any errors in my post per se...and Dont we think we are going off topic with all of a bunch of new type of discussion you suddenly poured in it? We are not discussion how much similarity Hinduism and Vedism in philosophical aspect or based on practise have but something different.

 

[niaz]

Sapta Sindhu could refer to the seven rivers

Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Sutlej. Beas and Saraswati ( the one supposed to flow first into Cholistan desert, later into what is know as Rann of Kutch). Esso had a ferilizer plant at Dharki and I once flew over from there to Sukkur in a small plane. I could detect something which could have been dried up course of a river.

Achemaenids captured all of what is Pakistan down to Indian Gujrat. Tablets inscribed by Darius the great (circa 500 BC or a couple hundred years before Alexander) mention a list of the Satrapies /provinces of Darius empire. The Indian Satrapy known as 'Hindus' with the capital as Taxilla is described as the richest providing revenue equal to 360 talents of Gold. Another Satrapy was known as Gandara, remains of which have been discoverd in Swat.

Iranians called themselves Aryans, thus at least around 500 BC some Aryans had invaded and captured part of the Bharat Varsha.

I dont discount the possibility that immigration went the other way as well probably in an earlier period. ( As late as the Kushan period, Indians were ruling an empire including part of China - Emperor Kanishka.) I am convinced some Aryan tribes emigrated this way around 1000 - 1500 BC and it was these people who destroyed the Indus valley civilzation. I have visited Mohenjo Daro myself and there is no evidence of an earthquake or a disastrous flood. As if people simply got up and left, but unlike Fatehpoor Sikri, Indus is still flowing close by, thus not due to lack of water.

I will have to do some more reading before I discount such a well accepted part of history.

 

[roadrunner]

Wrong, There has been huge archeological finding of harappan civilization in UP, There existed similar finding spanning to old times in south as well, in Srilanka as well, pointing out to parallel developements of many cultures.

Actually you're wrong.

First off, there has been no significant find of any Harrapan settlement in UP. The only place in modern day Bharat where there's been a major find is at Lothal in Gujarat which borders on Pakistan. There have been at least 4 major cities of the Indus Valley Civilization found in Pakistan. Around 70% of the Indus Valley Civ was located in Pakistan, perhaps 20% in Bharat, and perhaps 5% in Afghanistan with a bit in Iran too. This makes it mainly a Pakistani civilization - something India cannot claim to be its own or even to be part of without reference to Pakistan. Ancient Pakistan was where the majority of the Indus Valley Civilization was located.

Second, Sri Lanka has nothing to do with any Indus Valley Civilization. Absolutely nothing. The only bit of India (which I call Bharat), that had anything to do with the Indus Valley Civilization was the area bordering Pakistan in Gujerat, plus some settlements into Indian Punjab bordering Pakistan.

But make no mistake, this civilization was a majority ancient Pakistani civilization. A mere twist and stealing of the name "India" does not automatically give Bharat the history of Pakistan also.

So I actually have not referred India but subcontinent in general. Spanning across parts of different countries.

You can say that now. I am merely clarifying that when you say India it doesnt mean the India of today. India in historical terms was basically the region of Pakistan, before the Bharatis took the name in 1947. Let's not confuse people here, intentionally or not.

 

[Adux]

Road Runner

Dravidians were the people of Indus valley civilization who were driven down to south of India during the so called Aryan invasions, not the present day gene pool of Pakistan, they have nothing to do with Indus valley civilization. Hinduism as a religion was the most prevalent in present day Pakistan, Afghanistan etc, which are well documented facts in the vedas, The present day kandhar was known as Gandhara etc

 

[roadrunner]

It is generalization of you think Hindu is derived from the only word Sindhu, I'll give you some of the possible leaneage of the name.

1. Sapta Sindhu becomes Hapta Hindu is one by the Greeks.

2. Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word Hindu as “chore [thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], and ghulam [slave].” In another dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (Part One, p. 615) the Persian meaning of the word Hindu is further described as barda (obedient servant), sia faam (balck color) and kaalaa (black).

3. The idea that rishis of old, several thousand years ago, also called central India Hindustan, and the people who lived there Hindus. The following verse, said to be from the Vishnu Purana, Padma Purana and the Bruhaspati Samhita states that,

Aaasindo Sindhu Paryantham Yasyabharatha Bhoomikah
MathruBhuh Pithrubhoochaiva sah Vai Hindurithismrithaah

4. Another verse reads as,

Sapta sindhu muthal Sindhu maha samudhram vareyulla Bharatha bhoomi aarkkellamaano Mathru bhoomiyum Pithru bhoomiyumayittullathu, avaraanu hindukkalaayi ariyappedunnathu.

Both of these verses more or less indicate that whoever considers the land of Bharatha Bhoomi between Sapta Sindu and the Indian Ocean as his or her motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu. However, here we also have a ancient name of India mentioned, which is Bharata Bhoomi. “Bhoomi” (or Bhumi) means Mother Earth, but Bharata is the land of Bharata or Bharata-varsha, which is the land of India. In numerous Vedic references in the Puranas, Mahabharata and other Vedic texts, the area of India is referred to as Bharata-varsha or the land of Bharata and not as Hindustan.

5. Another,

Himalayam Samaarafya Yaavat Hindu Sarovaram
Tham Devanirmmitham desham Hindustanam Prachakshathe

Himalyam muthal maha samudhram vareyulla
devanirmmithamaya deshaththe Hindustanam ennu parayunnu

These again indicate that the region between the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean is called Hindustan.

Only the Greek reference to Hapta Hindu in here is correct. All your other possibilities from the Puranas are FALSE. Why is that do you think? They are false, because the Puranas were written much much later than the Rig Veda which gave the first reference to Sapta Sindhu, and itself described the geographical boundaries, which were only Pakistan, NOT India.

The Puranas then manipulated everything, much like Bharat stole the name India so that it could claim Pakistan's history. The Puranas were written CENTURIES after the Rig Veda and can claim what it likes. But the original Sapta Sindhu was Pakistan.

6. In the Rig Veda, Bharata is referred to as the country of “Sapta Sindhu”, i.e. the country of seven great rivers. This is, of course, acceptable. However, exactly which book and chapter this verse comes from needs to be clarified. Nonetheless, the word “Sindhu” refers to sea in Vedas, and not merely to the specific river called “Sindhu” or place called Sindh.

Completely false again. Sapta Sindhu was the 7 rivers. 5 of them were from the Indus, the other two possibly included the Sawaswati - it's well know, in fact the Rig Veda mentions them. These rivers are all located in PAKISTAN - hence the Rig Veda was written in ancient Pakistan.

Will get back to the rest later.

 

[roadrunner]

Road Runner

Dravidians were the people of Indus valley civilization who were driven down to south of India during the so called Aryan invasions, not the present day gene pool of Pakistan, they have nothing to do with Indus valley civilization. Hinduism as a religion was the most prevalent in present day Pakistan, Afghanistan etc, which are well documented facts in the vedas, The present day kandhar was known as Gandhara etc

TOTALLY INCORRECT. Proven false Hindutva propaganda.

The people of the Indus Valley Civilization were the ancestors of modern day Pakistanis. It's a proven fact. They were a mixture of Aryan and Dravidian people, much like Pakistan is today. The Indus Valley Script has not been worked out as yet. It is not Dravidian, and no expert will say it is Dravidian, though it's one possibility. Even if it were Dravidian it doesnt prove anything - For example almost all of India is Dravidian, yet 72% of the speak an Aryan language - there is no definitive correlation between language and genetics. Sometimes language is forced onto a people or simply adopted by them.

Hinduism was NOT present in any substantial number in Pakistan or Afghanistan - at least Hinduism in its current form. It's clearly stated in the Rig Veda, that the people were completely the opposite of what Hinduism today has turned into. Vedic society ate beef, didnt have caste systems for example, but Hinduism and Bharat today does. This is just some of the differences between historical Pakistan and modern day Bharat - Pakistan was historically VEDIC, Bharat was never Vedic (though people of the Vedas did rule them), Bharat was HINDU - a completely different religion/philosphy to Vedism.

 

[joey]

I'd like to have a proper discussion here because I can already feel the person I'm talking to is considering us a hindutva peoples, oh well, heck I'm an athiest to begin with.

Actually you're wrong.

And where?

First off, there has been no significant find of any Harrapan settlement in UP.

Wrong, and I'll give you a few official proof,

https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no20093.htm
http://www.education.nic.in/cd50years/12/8I/6T/8I6T0F01.htm
http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/001600.html

The only place in modern day Bharat where there's been a major find is at Lothal in Gujarat which borders on Pakistan.

Incorrect, see above.

There have been at least 4 major cities of the Indus Valley Civilization found in Pakistan. Around 70% of the Indus Valley Civ was located in Pakistan, perhaps 20% in Bharat, and perhaps 5% in Afghanistan with a bit in Iran too. This makes it mainly a Pakistani civilization - something India cannot claim to be its own or even to be part of without reference to Pakistan.

Do you have suffer from some serious issues? I have given you many sources here none of them denies Pakistan being one of cradle of Indus valley civilization.

Why do you claim prophet muhammad to be your own prophet? Hes born in Arabia man! No one claims Indus valley was in bangladesh ok?

Second, Sri Lanka has nothing to do with any Indus Valley Civilization. Absolutely nothing. The only bit of India (which I call Bharat), that had anything to do with the Indus Valley Civilization was the area bordering Pakistan in Gujerat, plus some settlements into Indian Punjab bordering Pakistan.

Coming late into the discussion and shooting here and there is not my fault, the reference of Srilanka was to show there was no Aryan invasion theories, there existed many parallel civilizations in and around India.

But make no mistake, this civilization was a majority ancient Pakistani civilization. A mere twist and stealing of the name "India" does not automatically give Bharat the history of Pakistan also.

Didnt quite get you, Indus valley civilization is known in all scientific circles as a civilization which flourished bounding punjab-pakistan et al.

Shall I remind you gently that Pakistan was a part of Indian history till partition? So are you telling me when we say Mughal ruled in subcontinent we mean they ruled in what we call todays India and not Pakistan? Please..

Your argument seems non-constructive and vague, your trying to put a twist in claim which No one has been really bothered about here.

Indian and Pakistans history are interwined gentleman, denying it can be done on nationalistic viewpoint but not on scientific discussion.

You can say that now. I am merely clarifying that when you say India it doesnt mean the India of today. India in historical terms was basically the region of Pakistan, before the Bharatis took the name in 1947. Let's not confuse people here, intentionally or not.

[/quote]
On the basis of what? May I know?

I didnt knew that there was no indian history other than Indus rivers....

Adux aint you from South India? Perhaps you can say soemthing about Kerala School of Mathematics and Kerala school of ancient martial arts...The first naval battle et al.

 

[joey]

Only the Greek reference to Hapta Hindu in here is correct. All your other possibilities from the Puranas are FALSE. Why is that do you think? They are false, because the Puranas were written much much later than the Rig Veda which gave the first reference to Sapta Sindhu, and itself described the geographical boundaries, which were only Pakistan, NOT India.

I'll also love to know at what age those puranas were written, and what about Bem Riyadh.

The Puranas then manipulated everything, much like Bharat stole the name India so that it could claim Pakistan's history. The Puranas were written CENTURIES after the Rig Veda and can claim what it likes. But the original Sapta Sindhu was Pakistan.

Really? The puranas manipulated everything? Manipulated what? How did the makers of puranas knew there would be a India and a Pakistan and thus stole Pakistans history?

Maybe the makers of purana didnt knew that the language they wrote is similar to indus scripts, else how can those are used to de-crypt many indus scripts?

Is this also a hindutva stuff?

German Indologist claims to have decoded Indus scripts

Panaji, Feb 07: Renowned German Indologist and scientist of religion, Egbert Richter Ushanas today claimed that he has unravelled the mystery of Indus Valley scripts by decoding major seals and tablets found during various archaeological excavations.

"Already 1,000-odd seals are decoded and of them, 300-odd are printed in monography -- the message of Indus seals and tablets," stated Richter, who has also decoded tablets from Easter Island in Pacific Ocean and disc of Phaistos on Island of Crete in Meditarrenean Sea.

"All the seals are based on Vedas -- Rig Veda and Atharva Veda," Richter told a news agency here.

He is here to attend the International Indology Conference, beginning from February 7.

Richter, who began decoding the mysteries behind the seals way back in 1988, feels that after decoding 1,000-odd seals, there is no need to decode the rest.

"You need not eat all apples of world to understand the apple. Few apples are enough," he quipped.

The path-breaking decoding by Richter is based on the Sumerian and Brahmi script wherein he has detected the lost meaning of the seals which can be traced to Vedic era.

A Vedic scholar himself, Richter during the course of unravelling the Indus Valley mysteries, has translated all the important Vedic hymns and is a Sanskrit exponent too.

Bureau Report

Your making reptitive claims, We all know the 7 rivers flowed in what is today called Pakistan and some part of India, later this civilization moved inwards towards Gagentic basin.

Completely false again. Sapta Sindhu was the 7 rivers. 5 of them were from the Indus, the other two possibly included the Sawaswati - it's well know, in fact the Rig Veda mentions them. These rivers are all located in PAKISTAN - hence the Rig Veda was written in ancient Pakistan.

I'll again repeat, In Rig Veda Sindhu referred to rivers and seas both, thus one needs to find the context of the text. Your free to prove me wrong with proper quotes.

Indus peoples based on ehtno-linguistic group may have inhabited the Ghaggar-Hakra rivers of North India-Pakistan (ghaggar is In present India, while hakra flows in pakistan) the people who authored Indus valley also have co-habited the northern banks of the Ghaggar- hakra river along with Indus, the fact only 80 Indus valley sites have been excavated on the banks of river Indus and more than 415 on the banks of Ghaggar hakra river, and of 1400 known Indus valley sites that have been excavated, 917 are in india, 417 are in Pakisstan and 1 in Afganistan.

Its clear from this Indus was not the only river that sustanised the indus valley civilization,it was Ghaggar- Hakra as well , now it is widely accepted that the mythical Saraswati that is praised in the also Rigveda is the Ghaggar-Hakra , satellite based photographs and studying the shift patterns of Ghaggar Hakra , it has been proved that Sutlej(sutidri) and yamuna were tributaries of Ghaggar-Hakra river, but subsequently shifted course and sutlej became a tributary of Indus and Yamuna the tributary of Ganges..........Ghaggr-Hakra flowed between the Sutlej and Yamuna and before its drying up it was the major river west of ganges...........

Rigveda was composed on the banks of river Ghaggar-hakra(saraswati) in the foot hills of the siwaliks in modern Punjab-haryana, the nAdai stuti praises ghaggar-hakra as a magnificient river that starts in the mountains and flows into the ocean...........so when did it dry up,from geologoical evidence we know that ghaggar hakra began the slow process of drying up not later than 2000 BCE , and this is why at the end of the Vedic age, sindhu(indus) gains prominence while saraswati(ghaggar) loses its importance,by the time of mahabharatha(epic period) Saraswati is almost dried up..

People who stick to AIT claim that Aryans invaded Indus valley in 1500 BC and destroyed it, but they cant explain why harappan civilization existed right upto 1300 BC, besides it cannot account for the fact that ghaggr-Hakra which was the river of Rigveda had already dried up by 1500 BCE, Rig veda praises the ghaggar-hakra when in full flow which was certanly before 2000 BC, this was the mature phase of the harappan civilization......its clear that harappans did not vanish when the rig vedas were being composed and there was no invasion.

Harappan people did not vanish in an invasion but, migrated towards the gangetic basin (later harappan sites like in sanauli in UP attest to this fact), peoples also migrated towards the gangetic basin from the Gaggar-hakra basin for the same reason,which was the shifting course of Sutlej and Yanmuna,ghaggar,Indus) which was causing desertification in the west.


But why are you suffering from a emergency a-la-nationalistic phenomenon gentleman? Go through the entire thread please, the points you have raised is not what was being discussed.

Will get back to the rest later.

i'm waiting to 'what' you want to get back at , have you even read the whole discussion and what it is trying to speak? please do, without sudeenly jumping and making us as hindutva and claiming abcd is making this discussion really look bad.

We were discussion here how true is euro-centric view of aryan invasion, because genetics has proved it wrong, archeology has proved it wrong, carbon dating has proved it wrong, we were supposed to move on discussion over linguistics and you chipped in with whatever claims...

niaz, I'll get back on the point you raised later, thank you.

 

[Adux]

Sheesh People,

Present day Pakistan was a part of India(as called by firangs and the rest etc) before. Hindu's etc lived quite a lot in Pakistan and Afghanistan until the Islamic invasions. Now these same people's decendents are living in India and Sri Lanka etc.......So how are they stealing history!!! Its all about culture...

 

[roadrunner]

I Love Beef

Whether you love, eat or even sleep beef is not the question here. Beef, or rather the cow, IS considered sacred in Hinduism and in fact in some states of India, it's illegal to comsume it. That is only one of the ways in which Vedic (aka Ancient Pakistani society) differs from contemporary Hindu society - the two are distinct philosphies, the notion that Ancient Pakistan in any way resembled modern Bharat/any Hindu society is just fanciful and ridiculous.

 

[joey]

wtf is going on here?? Neo please....dont let this discussion go in drain road runner I can already find a bunch of mistakes in the above two replies to adux, thank you.

I'll desist replying here anymore, we are just fanciful and ridiculous peoples indeed...

 

[roadrunner]

Sheesh People,

Present day Pakistan was a part of India(as called by firangs and the rest etc) before. Hindu's etc lived quite a lot in Pakistan and Afghanistan until the Islamic invasions. Now these same people's decendents are living in India and Sri Lanka etc.......So how are they stealing history!!! Its all about culture...

Not true. There was no country called India until 1947. In fact India was not even part of any country's name before the 1700's when the British called it "British India". Present day Pakistan was never part of India (only Northwest India which is the fringe of India). If you want to use the fringe argument, then you could say that India Assam was a part of Bangladesh or that Indian Punjab was a part of Pakistan, or that Pakistan was a part of Eastern Afghanistan, or the Archemids etc. The simple truth of the matter is that Pakistan was culturally AND historically never a part of Bharat - the cultures were always at odds, as the Mahabharata accounts in several places. Historically, there's ample proof Pakistan and India have for the whole always been different countries.

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.

 

[Keysersoze]

Last time I visited this thread it was proceeding in a civil manner. Now if it does not continue then it will be closed.

 

[Adux]

Road runner,

I have seen your kind quiet a lot, skewed sense of history

Check on the Maurya Empire? and Lets start from there....