Is there something called an Indus Valley Hinduism?

[Joe Shearer]

A question arose a few hours ago about the nature of Hinduism, and whether it was the same in the Indus Valley and in the rest of India. Apparently some observers believe that there was a fundamental difference between the type of Hindu religious practice in the Indus Valley, and that elsewhere, and they attributed it to an amalgamation of the IVC and the culture of the Aryan-speaking immigrants from central Asia.

It is most disconcerting to read the generally approving comments of those who are not Hindus themselves, and to find that they have been impressed by the astonishing collection of misunderstood observations made by an observer in his note on the subject.

This note is to start the new thread, and to stop heart-burn among our friends because they are unable to stop what they started. We can start by copying relevant posts from the Rajput, Jats and Gujjars thread into this one, and discussing the issues raised over here. I would rather leave that thread to the circular argument that is going on in there.

@Cobra Arbok
@Cookie Monster
@Chhatrapati
@jbgt90 - get well soon
@M. Sarmad
@MUSTAKSHAF
@Nilgiri
@saiyan0321
@Sam.
@snow lake
@Talwar e Pakistan
@Tea addict
@TMA

 

[Srinivas]

Archeological findings are not complete, the deductions based on that lead to more confusion.

 

[Sugarcane]

Once Hindustanis dug up all Hindustan for Ancient history and complete their revision of history, only then we will start digging up Indus Valley to bust the narrative. We love to troll Hindustanis after all.

 

[Joe Shearer]

A question arose a few hours ago about the nature of Hinduism, and whether it was the same in the Indus Valley and in the rest of India. Apparently some observers believe that there was a fundamental difference between the type of Hindu religious practice in the Indus Valley, and that elsewhere, and they attributed it to an amalgamation of the IVC and the culture of the Aryan-speaking immigrants from central Asia.

It is most disconcerting to read the generally approving comments of those who are not Hindus themselves, and to find that they have been impressed by the astonishing collection of misunderstood observations made by an observer in his note on the subject.

This note is to start the new thread, and to stop heart-burn among our friends because they are unable to stop what they started. We can start by copying relevant posts from the Rajput, Jats and Gujjars thread into this one, and discussing the issues raised over here. I would rather leave that thread to the circular argument that is going on in there.

@Chhatrapati
@M. Sarmad
@Nilgiri
@saiyan0321
@Tea addict
@TMA

These are those who had contributed, or might be expected to hold an interesting view on the subject, not skirting controversy, but putting things as they see it without circumspection. All others who are interested are requested to join in, and speak their views frankly, assuming mutual goodwill and regard.

Archeological findings are not complete, the deductions based on that lead to more confusion.

However, some of the arguments have been based on a differentiation between the Hinduism of the Vedas and that in the Puranas.

Is this valid? Why not?

This is quoted as it was the first post on another thread that differentiated between Pakistani social taxonomy and Indian social taxonomy.

The desire to reject names of various tribes is strong among some; the desire to retain them, among others. To draw a firm line of detachment from India and Hinduism, this one seems to have been among the earliest posts (in this thread). It was this overt desire to achieve differentiation that became the reason for many of the later posts.

//QUOTE="Taimur Khurram, post: 11104873, member: 172087"]Most of us aren't Iranic, so such an idea makes no sense.

Even people like me and you who have some Iranic ancestry are pretty much completely isolated from it now. And it's not even our paternal lineage which is what counts in our part of the world.

I only support rejecting names like Rajput, Jat or Gujjar since they don't denote a common paternal heritage and unnecessarily link us with India and Hinduism.//

 

[Sam.]

A question arose a few hours ago about the nature of Hinduism, and whether it was the same in the Indus Valley and in the rest of India. Apparently some observers believe that there was a fundamental difference between the type of Hindu religious practice in the Indus Valley, and that elsewhere, and they attributed it to an amalgamation of the IVC and the culture of the Aryan-speaking immigrants from central Asia.

It is most disconcerting to read the generally approving comments of those who are not Hindus themselves, and to find that they have been impressed by the astonishing collection of misunderstood observations made by an observer in his note on the subject.

This note is to start the new thread, and to stop heart-burn among our friends because they are unable to stop what they started. We can start by copying relevant posts from the Rajput, Jats and Gujjars thread into this one, and discussing the issues raised over here. I would rather leave that thread to the circular argument that is going on in there.

@Cobra Arbok
@Cookie Monster
@Chhatrapati
@jbgt90 - get well soon
@M. Sarmad
@MUSTAKSHAF
@Nilgiri
@saiyan0321
@Sam.
@snow lake
@Talwar e Pakistan
@Tea addict
@TMA

Didn't receive any notification but happy to land here.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Didn't receive any notification but happy to land here.

Tags seem not to have worked. Glad you are here.

 

[Zibago]

A question arose a few hours ago about the nature of Hinduism, and whether it was the same in the Indus Valley and in the rest of India. Apparently some observers believe that there was a fundamental difference between the type of Hindu religious practice in the Indus Valley, and that elsewhere, and they attributed it to an amalgamation of the IVC and the culture of the Aryan-speaking immigrants from central Asia.

It is most disconcerting to read the generally approving comments of those who are not Hindus themselves, and to find that they have been impressed by the astonishing collection of misunderstood observations made by an observer in his note on the subject.

This note is to start the new thread, and to stop heart-burn among our friends because they are unable to stop what they started. We can start by copying relevant posts from the Rajput, Jats and Gujjars thread into this one, and discussing the issues raised over here. I would rather leave that thread to the circular argument that is going on in there.

@Cobra Arbok
@Cookie Monster
@Chhatrapati
@jbgt90 - get well soon
@M. Sarmad
@MUSTAKSHAF
@Nilgiri
@saiyan0321
@Sam.
@snow lake
@Talwar e Pakistan
@Tea addict
@TMA

We dont even know for certain if they followed any religion just statues and seals with native animals dont tell you much about one culture

 

[Joe Shearer]

We dont even know for certain if they followed any religion just statues and seals with native animals dont tell you much about one culture

You are so right. By 'they' you mean the residents of the Indus Valley Civilisation; inasmuch that is concerned, you are perfectly correct. Even the statues and seals with native animals have no clear links to religion; there is no evidence that they were in use in religion.

We need to examine the basic argument for a distinction between the Hinduism of the Indus Valley and the Hinduism of the Ganges Valley. A summary follows.

There is a thought that this inchoate religious consciousness to which our only clues are the statues (statuettes?) and seals with native animals, if religious at all, was merged with the Vedic religion of the immigrants who brought in the Aryan language, and it remained intact in that mingled form in the Indus Valley. However, it is the further speculation, that Vedic religion was changed beyond recognition as the incoming individuals, families, groups and tribes spread down the Ganges-Yamuna valley, and interacted with the Dravidian speaking inhabitants of those lands. This, according to the theory that you will find elaborated at length in the note quoted in the other thread, that I shall reproduce here shortly, produced the Puranic religion. It is supposed that the Puranic religion was quite distinct and widely divergent from the Vedic religion; ergo, even the Hinduism that prevailed, supposedly, in the two regions was not the same. They were two different systems of faith.

We have to start with this basic analysis, and examine the facts to determine whether or not this was indeed so.

My paraphrasing it for the convenience of the reader does not in any way mean that I support this theory.

Some more links with a bearing on the theme; these are just for reading, detailed analysis can follow.

Clans are known by lineages, place of origin, and our sub-clans.

I can’t speak for the others you mentioned, but Rajputs are of three main sub-clans. This is how we know who is an authentic Rajput and who is not.

Generally among Pakistani Rajputs, there is a strong connection with kinship and heritage. Sikhs also share it.

When I ask a supposed Indian Hindu Rajput what is their lineage and clan, all I get are blank stares. They don’t keep lineages like we do. Many Indians also keep Rajput surnames though they are not Rajputs. In this instance, it is impossible to verify.

In short, we are proud of our heritage and the lineage which shows our evolution to Islam. Rajputs have always been on the frontlines of the Islamic conquest (first against it and later its chief soldiers, generals, statesmen) and even today we are working to defend Pakistan from its enemies.

Funny thing about this lie is that only indian Hindu Rajputs follow gotra marriage tradition which is solely based on lineage and clan. It's only the Hindu Rajputs whose 300-400 years old lineage can be easily found as we preserve it in Haridwar and update it after death or birth of any member. What's more funny is that the Rajputs of Rajputana don't even consider Pakistani Rajputs as Rajputs.

In Central Punjab (Lahore,etc.,) we are half the population. We are thoroughly linked and embedded in the structure and way of life of Punjab.

Rajputs and related groups like Jats, Gujjars, Bajwas, Bhattis have been part of this region since time immemorial.

A Muslim Rajput would rather commit sepukku than claim anything in common with India or Hinduism.

This is why we don’t consider you Rajputs, you talk big but you are mostly full of hot air.

Half of you stole our surnames and many of you use them as first names like Raj, Rani, etc.

Real Rajput blood makes us tall, muscular, fair-skinned with light hair.

This because of our nomadic Central Asian Irani origin.

Muslim and Pakistani first. I consider the two almost synonymous in importance of our identity.

Ethnicity, language, province second.

Matter resolved.

By the way, like the rest of us, Pakistani Rajputs have also begun marrying outside tribe.

We do same,lineage over 800 years is preserved and updated.

 

[HariPrasad]

A question arose a few hours ago about the nature of Hinduism, and whether it was the same in the Indus Valley and in the rest of India. Apparently some observers believe that there was a fundamental difference between the type of Hindu religious practice in the Indus Valley, and that elsewhere, and they attributed it to an amalgamation of the IVC and the culture of the Aryan-speaking immigrants from central Asia.

It is most disconcerting to read the generally approving comments of those who are not Hindus themselves, and to find that they have been impressed by the astonishing collection of misunderstood observations made by an observer in his note on the subject.

This note is to start the new thread, and to stop heart-burn among our friends because they are unable to stop what they started. We can start by copying relevant posts from the Rajput, Jats and Gujjars thread into this one, and discussing the issues raised over here. I would rather leave that thread to the circular argument that is going on in there.

@Cobra Arbok
@Cookie Monster
@Chhatrapati
@jbgt90 - get well soon
@M. Sarmad
@MUSTAKSHAF
@Nilgiri
@saiyan0321
@Sam.
@snow lake
@Talwar e Pakistan
@Tea addict
@TMA

I think this so called new findings have come to suit Neo Pakistani mentality which puts all out effort to deny any Indian ancestry in tems of either ethnicity, culture or religion. There are pseudo intellectuals who can propogate these lies for few bucks. The reliability of such theory must be looked in carefully.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Now here we have a series of posts that are frankly regressive. The focus is on the old fall-back position about the golden-haired, blue-eyed barbarians who fought their way into India and defeated the locals in every battle. This was introduced by the British, and retro-fitted into every invaders' myth of origin.

It,s we the only Muslim rajput whose more than 600 years old lineage is available.A lot of detail is available in Distt gazetteer of India published in 1864.A detailed family tree is available which goes up to Beer Bikarama jeet and Ram Chander jee.etc
There was no cousin and outside gotra marriage before 1947.Till today very few people whom I know married outside the gotra.

Most pure castes are found in Muslim society .In west no one knows who is his true father and most of children are born due to extramarital relationship

Pakistani jets rajputs are only in name. After they were conquered by mughals or decided to convert for patronage during Mughal period they inter married with Muslims from the west and hence cannot be claiming themselves to be pure blood. This is fine because there is no need to explicitly break their connections with India. They just need to stop calling themselves these because they aren't really from these clans/ castes

What's your cast?
Why would someone hide or stop using his cast, are you ashamed of it?


Who cares.
Btw that's because we made alliance with the mughals and accepted Islam which was not acceptable to you hindu rajputs, and starts to disown the muslims rajputs and lived in denial.


Lol who told you that rajputs are fair skinned?
We were warriors dhoop ma larh larh k nasslen ke nasslen jallen parhen hn

Says darkies who claim Irani blood. Give us a break. Accept your Southern heritage.



It is an incidental trait of many Rajput clans and does not mean we are superior. We also tend to have curly hair in more abundance than other Punjabis, along with green eyes and brown hair. Mostly however we are known for our height and muscular build.

However even dark-skinned Pakistanis look very different compared to Indians, as we generally all have long noses, longer face, and tend to be more muscular, tall build.

We are totally different civilizations, racially and culturally.

Actually it's the other way around..its the Rajasthani Rajputs who had much stronger alliance than any so-called muslim Rajputs .Most of the the time the Mughal army was led by an Rajasthani general even against Maharana Pratap ,Shivaji ,Afghan rebelllre and much more. When the Assamese faced Mughal army they dresses their Frontline soldiers as pandits as they knew it is considered a sin in Hindu Rajputs to kill a priest and they gain initial momentum and eventually won the ahom - Mughal wars.The Rajputs resistance to "islamic rule" is usually used by hindutva or Islamic right wingers who see everything from the eyes of religion. Most Rajputs Kings back then only concern was how to expand their kingdom,not religion.

You know one has to marry outside gotra in gotra marriage tradition? As a matter of fact you marry outside 3 gotra -- your own,your mother's and your grandmother's.This is done to avoid intermixing which leads to many diseases in offspringsas we can we in cousin marriage cases.

Nice but you didn't told me your background. Baloch?

Not just they but even most modern Rajputs don't care but I had to tell that guy truth for whom Pakistani Rajputs are "the bravest,tallest,fairest etc etc Rajputs" .little do he realize Rajputs are known to have wheatish complexion, not fair.i don't care either even I treat daroga people as Rajputs .


If it comes to real Rajputs, the rural conservative Rajputs of Rajasthan don't even consider half of indian Rajputs as Rajputs. They just laugh when they hear term like "Pakistani Rajputs".

 

[Pakhtoon yum]

I think this so called new findings have come to suit Neo Pakistani mentality which puts all out effort to deny any Indian ancestry in tems of either ethnicity, culture or religion. There are pseudo intellectuals who can propogate these lies for few bucks. The reliability of such theory must be looked in carefully.

What Indian heritage? What was India back then?

 

[Sine Nomine]

Now here we have a series of posts that are frankly regressive. The focus is on the old fall-back position about the golden-haired, blue-eyed barbarians who fought their way into India and defeated the locals in every battle. This was introduced by the British, and retro-fitted into every invaders' myth of origin.

Invasion did happened but at the end like in game of chess,all pawns and king went into same box.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I think this so called new findings have come to suit Neo Pakistani mentality which puts all out effort to deny any Indian ancestry in tems of either ethnicity, culture or religion. There are pseudo intellectuals who can propogate these lies for few bucks. The reliability of such theory must be looked in carefully.

I could agree with some part of this statement.

 

[saiyan0321]

Such a topic requires massive research and a serious effort by its participants to bring forth sources and researches conducted to highlight the difference if there was or any their religion's practice if there was.. Not claims but sources must be presented.

On top of it all careful consideration must be placed to make sure this discussion does not become a Ganges vs Indus battle nor whether there was India or not nor snide jabs or remarks that will inflame posters...

Zibago raised a good point this is why professional archeological sources are needed..

We may never know as its been thousands of years but we may come to some form of understanding...

Oh @Joe Shearer tags didn't work

 

[Joe Shearer]

Invasion did happened but at the end like in game of chess,all pawns and king went into same box.

I think so, too. The latest genetic studies seem to indicate the following scenario:

1. The original inhabitants can be divided into Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian; they were hunter-gatherers.
2. Migrants and the creators of the first urban wave moved in stages from the east Iranian plateau and the Afghan highlands and created the first villages and sedentary culture.
3. These migrants and the ANI mingled to form the ethnic common folk of the Indus Valley Civilisation.
4. The rest of India continued to be populated by ANI/ ASI hunter-gatherers.
5. Around 2000 BC to 1500 BC, Aryan language speaking, to be specific tothr
6. During the decline of the IVC in 1300 BC or thereabouts, the survivors of that Civilisation moved east, mingled with the ANI in the north, with the ASI in the south, and formed the resultant ethnic matrix for what was the second urban wave.

There was nothing much unique left after all these movements.

Such a topic requires massive research and a serious effort by its participants to bring forth sources and researches conducted to highlight the difference if there was or any their religion's practice if there was.. Not claims but sources must be presented.

On top of it all careful consideration must be placed to make sure this discussion does not become a Ganges vs Indus battle nor whether there was India or not nor snide jabs or remarks that will inflame posters...

Zibago raised a good point this is why professional archeological sources are needed..

We may never know as its been thousands of years but we may come to some form of understanding...

Oh @Joe Shearer tags didn't work

Glad you're here, though.