Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[Flintlock]

The Vedic religion and rituals later incorporated local beliefs, deities, especially after the success of the early Bhakti movements which spread from the south to the North. This led to teh formation of modern day HInduism, which supplanted the previous, indigenous Budhist and Jain beliefs.

The Vedic religion is nothing but early Hinduism. To call it a different religion is wrong.

The only way you can call it a different religion is if later Hindus rejected the RigVeda and the Rigvedic Gods.

 

[Vinod2070]

It doesn't matter where the majority of Pakistanis ended up being, East Pakistan was an addition in a way to the idea of Pakistan that should not have occurred, nor was it originally envisioned as part of Pakistan, rather a separate Independent nation.

I am posting Niaz Sahib's post from elsewhere in this regard:

I am not sure what "original" means. That was one proposal and the Muslim league leaders in their wisdom created a single nation based on the faith of Islam. It was always about that and not geography. Why deny the undeniable!

I am not sure why you cannot comprehend it - The Greeks are now primarily orthodox Christians, but their ancient history included a polytheistic faith far removed from Christianity. The Greeks nonetheless still own that ancient history on their land and of their people, even if their culture and faith has changed. The same case with Pakistan.

No one is denying you you history. It is you guys who abandoned it. Now some of you want to again claim it.

We are always saying it is a common history. Not that it doesn't belong to you!

That was a Pakistani position that now seems to be changing slowly. A most welcome change.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am not sure what "original" means. That was one proposal and the Muslim league leaders in their wisdom created a single nation based on the faith of Islam. It was always about that and not geography. Why deny the undeniable!

You talked of the Two Nation theory, and I believe I proved to you that in its original form the Two nation theory talked of uniting the Western Muslim territories.

The addition of East Bengal was the result of the politics of the time.

No one is denying you you history. It is you guys who abandoned it. Now some of you want to again claim it.

We are always saying it is a common history. Not that it doesn't belong to you!

That was a Pakistani position that now seems to be changing slowly. A most welcome change.

No one abandoned it - if we had abandoned it we would not have preserved what we have now of the IVC and Gandhara. You are just seeing more and more people take interest in it as the information revolution puts more information at our fingertips.

 

[DarkStar]

The Vedic religion is nothing but early Hinduism. To call it a different religion is wrong.

The only way you can call it a different religion is if later Hindus rejected the RigVeda and the Rigvedic Gods.

I don't want to go off topic on this thread, and personally I would not normally find it appropriate debating with you the various mechanisms which led to Hinduism being the religion it is today. I would not wish to cause offense.

However, If you insist, I could oblige you by beginning this discussion in another thread.

 

[Flintlock]

I don't want to go off topic on this thread, and personally I would not normally find it appropriate debating with you the various mechanisms which led to Hinduism being the religion it is today. I would not wish to cause offense.

However, If you insist, I could oblige you by beginning this discussion in another thread.

I am well aware of the history of Hinduism, thank you very much, and also of the history of Islam. Both of which I have read from an objective (and non-religious point of view.

The history of hinduism has various layers, and it has absorbed many influences over the centuries.

However, these current attempts to create a new religion simply in order to prove that Pakistanis were never Hindus (inspite of the fact that they worshipped the same gods, considered the same texts to be sacred, and their society was identical to the Brahminical system this side of the border), is rather absurd and completely wrong.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

ous layers, and it has absorbed many influences over the centuries.

However, these current attempts to create a new religion simply in order to prove that Pakistanis were never Hindus (inspite of the fact that they worshipped the same gods, considered the same texts to be sacred, and their society was identical to the Brahminical system this side of the border), is rather absurd and completely wrong.

So you claim - I see no evidence in that respect as others and I have argued. But, as DS said, start another thread for that discussion.

 

[Flintlock]

So you claim - I see no evidence in that respect as others and I have argued. But, as DS said, start another thread for that discussion.

Are you freaking kiddng me? On one hand you claim the achievements of Hindus like Brahmagupta (Brahmin), and on the other hand you claim that Pakistanis were not Hindus?

This is highly absurd, but yes, I am going to start a thread on the topic, since people seem highly reluctant to accept the plain fact.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Are you freaking kiddng me? On one hand you claim the achievements of Hindus like Brahmagupta (Brahmin), and on the other hand you claim that Pakistanis were not Hindus?

This is highly absurd, but yes, I am going to start a thread on the topic, since people seem highly reluctant to accept the plain fact.

I said nothing of the sort - quit distorting my comments Flint - its becoming a favorite past time this of some of you.

I disagreed with the argument that Vedism was the same as Hinduism - I did not say Pakistanis were not Hindus at some point in history.

 

[Flintlock]

I disagreed with the argument that Vedism was the same as Hinduism - I did not say Pakistanis were not Hindus at some point in history.

Ok, fine maybe I minunderstood your post. But my original point stands.

 

[UnitedPak]

The Pakistani identity belongs to the people and not any specific religion.

Even IF Pakistanis followed the exact same version of Hinduism as modern Indians, Pakistani ancestors are still unrelated to the Indian people, as is proved by the numerous separate kingdoms and people (with their own languages and cultures) who inhabited the Indus region through the centuries.

As for 'Hinduism', the religion differs depending on which part of India you go. It seems very unlikely that Pakistanis would be following any one of the Indian versions 1400 years ago. And this has been proved to be the case by RR several times.
Add to this the fact that a lot of Hindu Indians consider Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism to be part of Hinduism, the definition of Hinduism becomes even vaguer.

The mounting evidence suggests that the Indus region has always had a separate identity right from the Indus Valley era. The region has continuously been inhabited to modern times by the same people and the region experienced countless of invasions due to being a crossroad of civilizations.

Certain members have a very limited understanding of the subcontinent which is portrayed by their dreams of colonial India being a natural country. As much as it pains us, the old kingdoms were neither tolerant or multicultural, hence the countless of wars. The idea of a democratic multicultural ancient India spanning from Afghanistan to Vietnam is absurd.

I found this interesting piece by dismayed Nepalese people:

Kathmandu: When Hindi comedy film 'Chandni Chowk to China' ruffled Nepali sentiments by wrongly asserting that the Buddha was born in India, it was not an isolated mistake, say many Nepalis. They feel that Bollywood has been stereotyping and belittling the Himalayan nation over the years.

Learn to appreciate our nation, Nepal tells Bollywood

Flintlock needs to understand that colonial India did not exist before British arrival. Painful reality, I know...

 

[Flintlock]

Ancient India has nothing to do with colonialism, and you know nothing whatsoever about the social and political structures in Ancient India. lets just leave it a that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Add to this the fact that a lot of Hindu Indians consider Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism to be part of Hinduism, the definition of Hinduism becomes even vaguer.

Now this is revisionism - its the faith/culture based ideological equivalent to the Akhand Bharat (geographic expansionism) expansionist ideology - or perhaps they both work together ...

 

[Destructlord]

Honestly i didnt know Afghans had any empire?!

 

[Flintlock]

Now this is revisionism - its the faith/culture based ideological equivalent to the Akhand Bharat (geographic expansionism) expansionist ideology - or perhaps they both work together ...

Its not. 'Hindu' originally refered to any inhabitant of the Indian subcontinent, but only in recent times have some of the religious practices of India become associated with the word "Hindu".

The fact is that "Hindu" can still be used for any inhabitant of India - whether he believes in Dharma, Buddhism, Sikhism, or Jainism. Although some faiths want to dissociate themselves from what they consider to be Hinduism, so they don't like being called Hindus.

If the original definition of Hindu is used, then even the Muslims and Christians of the subcontinent are Hindus.

 

[UnitedPak]

Ancient India has nothing to do with colonialism, and you know nothing whatsoever about the social and political structures in Ancient India. lets just leave it a that.

We will "leave it at that" when you address my points instead of avoiding my arguments with silly topic derailing accusations.