Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[Nassr]

In other words you are saying that Hindus (noot buddhist or jain) never was practiced (in manner) in pakistan of which I dont think you have any concrete evidence because historical temples, the fact that kasur and Lavapuri (Lahore) named after son's of rama exist in modern day pakistan is pure subversion of existence of these historical accounts of Sanathan Dhrama (excluding ofcourse sikh buddhist and jains ) apart from that in context of 20th century hindus, you blatantly marginalized 10% population which by your nations demography was "HINDU MINORITY" when pakistan was formed.

Good going!!!! I hope the rest of pakistan too undertakes such "Hindu proofing" measures for your homeland...

I am not saying that Hinduism was never practiced in Pakistan. Hinduism was and is being practiced in Pakistan. All I am saying is that it was never a majority religion as Buddhism and Islam was. This is substantiated by the fact that there were and are less number of temples west of Delhi since historical times.

In pre-1947 Pakistan, the Hindu population was:

Punjab (less Indian Punjab): 9% Hindu

Sindh: 10% Hindu

KPK: 2.5% Hindu

Baluchistan: 3% Hindu

Half of them migrated to Republic of India after the partition.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Islam emanated from Arabia and there are 57 countries in the world which follow Islamic civilization as does Pakistan. Pakistan is the cradle of Indus Valley Civilization and it is not Indian civilization, either in religious context, geographical context or political context. The geographical, religious and political contexts place Pakistan at the core of IVC and not India.

This thread essentially highlight the historical fact that Hinduism as practiced in India has never been the majority religion since the earliest times. Only Buddhism and Islam remained the majority religions for protracted period of time.

Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) dates back time immemorial and Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Shaivism, pre Vedas, post Vedas etc are all either part of Hinduism or have emerged from it and are the native culture and religion. Islam was born just 1400 years ago and was imported from the middle east.

 

[Nassr]

Both religions were started by Hindu people and they are not religions on their own,their belief systems are dharmic,anyway u wont understand it.

Please make me understand. I am all ears.

Jatts are the last converts to sikhism because of the Khalsa and keep it purely for political reasons.

Even they cant deny their strong bond and relationship with the hindus.

Jats do not accept that they accepted Sikhism because of Khalsa and that they were kept in Sikh fold for political reasons.

No,it is not.

712 AD is indeed the beginning of the idea of pakistan.

The geographical land of Pakistan existed as a separate entity for since the earliest times except for minor aberrations. In 1947, history merely repeated itself and established a status-quo ante.

no u r an arabi katua.

howmuchever people try to rewrite history here,u can never claim the ideology of your forefathers when u give up your faith,

This is an old debate,god knows the level of arab blood mixed in pakistanis.

But history works only from 1947.

There were many Turks/Iranians and what not moving to india during those times.

I would go on to say that one often follows the faith of his father,paternally there is no certainty that any of you are descendants of people of the land.

There is always a chance that someone's grandmom was raped and captured but for Hindus thats not the case,religion ll alone be the deciding marker in this case.

Hindus worked double/triple hard to pay Jizya and keep their faith.

The Punjabi/Sindhi Hindus who migrated during partition ll always remain the only certain desc
endants of IVC people if at all we assume there was no Aryan Invasion.

May I please ask as to what was the faith of your forefathers before they accepted Hinduism.

Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) dates back time immemorial and Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Shaivism, pre Vedas, post Vedas etc are all either part of Hinduism or have emerged from it and are the native culture and religion. Islam was born just 1400 years ago and was imported from the middle east.

Times immemorial is a rather broad categorization of time. Could you please reconsider so that we can continue the discussion within the realms of known history.

The Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists however do not agree with your description of the environment.

 

[Vinod2070]

First of all, religion was not the only basis of creation of Pakistan. There were many other factors which were as important and highlighting only religion as the basis of Two Nation Theory is a narrow view which some Pakistanis and majority of Indian Hindus believe:

Religious differences
Governing differences
Civilizational differences
Cultural differences
Societal/Social differences
Economic differences
Political differences

No. Check the two nation theory as propagated by Mr. Jinnah.

The two-nation theory (Urdu: دو-قومی نظریہ‎ — Dō-qaumī naẓariyah, Devanagari: दो-क़ौमी नज़रिया) is the ideology that the primary identity of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent is their religion, rather than their language or ethnicity, and therefore Indian Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nationalities, regardless of ethnic or other commonalities. The two-nation theory was a founding principle of the Pakistan Movement (i.e. the ideology of Pakistan as a Muslim nation-state in South Asia), and the partition of India in 1947.

It is all about religion and nothing else. It claimed that all Muslims of undivided India are a separate nation from the Hindus. That is why you had Eastern Pakistan and Western Pakistan with yours being the smaller wing.

You dropped the Western part from your region's name after 1971. But that doesn't change the very basis of your creation.

And while you Indians accuse us Pakistanis of using religion as the only basis of Two Nation Theory, you do the same and use your own religious scriptures as authority to prove your identity. The example is very clear from your own statement. You say the while the IVC was discovered only 100 years ago, the Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas, Vedanta... these are thousands of year old and Indian identity is not based on the IVC exclusively. What are these books that you are talking about – these are your religious scriptures which you base your identity on. You accuse Pakistanis to have used religion to highlight the Two nation Theory – you are also using religion to identify your identity and also geography.

There are many Indian Hindus who state that Rig Veda and other Vedas are words of God and do not represent any history. Yet most of you cite these religious scriptures to highlight India’s history and India’s geography.

When Indians accuse us that Mohammad Bin Qasim is perceived as the first Pakistani, the Indians also use their religious scriptures to outline their history and their civilization and the raison-detre of India’s existence. Get over your own demons before you have the right to accuse others of doing the same.

To prove the fact that IVC is a Pakistani heritage, religion is not used as the reason. It is the history supported by archeology and geography which is used to bring out the facts. Contrarily, Indians use religion and religious scriptures to lay their claim.

If you can't see any difference between a secular India which treats everyone same officially and Pakistan, which is an officially Islamic country where non Muslims were ethnically cleansed as soon as it was created (it is 97% Muslim now from a completely Dharmic land!), which has now turned on minority Islamic sects (Ahmedi/Shia/Barelvi/Sufi followers) after cleaning up the non Muslims, you have an issue that only you need to come to terms with.

I see no need to convince you. It is your own identity crisis and obsession with the religion of your ancestors. I couldn't care less about any of that.

It is only when you find a compulsive need to abuse the religion of your ancestors (like many of you have done in this thread) because of the identity crisis and need to prove that the conversion was complete, that is when you invite contempt for your current religion and it's founder. You should understand these implications and not wonder why people make those cartoons.

As one of Pakistani writers cautioned you folks.

Muslims are an extremely intolerant group and yet extremely sensitive when it comes to their own religious sensitivities.

Terrorism, Shameless Religious Bigotry and Pakistani Mindset | Pak Tea House

 

[newdelhinsa]

Inferiority of few Pakistanis has become deleterious to all the historic rationales available. All they are good at bullying their way to impose this distorted history on likewise vulnerable minds but they fail miserably when countered by real facts.

 

[dabomb]

Lets recount the major historical events from the earliest history of Pakistan to understand the relation of this land with various religions till it became majority Muslim.

WHo is this @Nassr guy with his weird delusions? Hinduism was huge in Pakistani Punjab and Sindh before they got invaded and raped by Arabs and Afghans, and these cowards converted to Islam to please their invaders.

If Hinduism was not a big influence is Pakistan, maybe these convert slaves of Pakistan should ask themselves why the biggest city of their country is named after the eldest son of Bhagwan Ram (Lahore)... I swear this forum is filled with some really ret*rded and delusional P@kis... hope not all of them are like this in real life lol

Please read the explanations of Swami Dayanand Saraswati who clearly and unambiguously stated that Rig Veda is a monotheistic scripture and that idol worship is not allowed in Hinduism. And he did not like the Muslims by any stretch of imagination. Please read your own before you respond in a sarcastic manner.

Rig Veda is anything but monotheistic, and same with Buddhism. Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think that you are stupid, then open your mouth and remove all doubt whatsoever

 

[Vinod2070]

I am sure they will believe me, but for the Indians.

This is what is taught to you in your textbooks and then there is the reality.

This textbook tells the young sixth class school children of Sindh that, "The Muslims knew that the people of South Asia were infidels and they kept thousands of idols in their temples." The Sindhi king, Raja Dahir, is described as cruel and despotic. "The non-Brahmans who were tired of the cruelties of Raja Dahir, joined hands with Muhammad-bin-Qasim because of his good treatment." According to this historical orientation, The conquest of Sindh opened a new chapter in the history of South Asia. "Muslims had ever lasting effects on their existence in the region. . .

For the first time the people of Sindh were introduced to Islam, its political system and way of the government. The people here had seenonly the atrocities of the Hindus. . . . The people of Sindh were so much impressed by the benevolence of Muslims that they regarded Muhammad-bin-Qasim as their savior. . . . Muhammad-bin-Qasim stayed inSindh for over three years. On his departure from Sindh, the localpeople were overwhelmed with grief." When I visited Hyderabad, Sindh in 1997, I discussed the contents of this textbook with local Sindhis, who assured me that they told their children an alternative version of this story. They informed me that any good Sindhi knows that "in several cities in ancient Sindh, Muhammad-bin-Qasim beheaded every male over the age of eighteen and that he sent tens of thousands of Sindhi women to the harems of the Abbassid Dynasty." They also explained that impact of these textbooks was minimal because, though the back of the book indicated that 20,000 copies were supposedly printed annually, that, because of corruption, "fewer than 10,000 were ever printed and distributed."

There is lot of fakeness in the whole ideological shallow structure that has been built on lies...

 

[Indischer]

I am not saying that Hinduism was never practiced in Pakistan. Hinduism was and is being practiced in Pakistan. All I am saying is that it was never a majority religion as Buddhism and Islam was. This is substantiated by the fact that there were and are less number of temples west of Delhi since historical times.

In pre-1947 Pakistan, the Hindu population was:

Punjab (less Indian Punjab): 9% Hindu

Sindh: 10% Hindu

KPK: 2.5% Hindu

Baluchistan: 3% Hindu

Half of them migrated to Republic of India after the partition.

And exactly how many Buddhists were in Pakistan by 1947? In the areas of Pre-partition Pakistan, the percentage of Hindus was around 20%.

 

[Vinod2070]

And exactly how many Buddhists were in Pakistan by 1947? In the areas of Pre-partition Pakistan, the percentage of Hindus was around 20%.

Jhooth ke paon nahi hotay...

 

[notsuperstitious]

Balochis are unique, Punjabis are unique, sindhis are unique and pathans are unique. But desperately claiming fake superiority is a sign of inferiority complex.

 

[Kloitra]

Please read Article 25 of Indian Constitution.

Janis, Sikhs part of broader Hindu religion, says SC
New Delhi, August 10 [2005]

In a significant ruling defining the status of communities like Sikhs and Jains within the Constitutional frame work, the Supreme Court has declined to treat them as separate minority communities from the broad Hindu religion, saying encouraging such tendencies would pose serious jolt to secularism and democracy in the country.

The so-called minority communities like Sikhs and Jains were not treated as national minorities at the time of framing of the Constitution. Sikhs and Jains, in fact, have throughout been treated as part of wider Hindu community, which has different sects, sub-sects, faiths, modes of worship and religious philosophies, a Bench of Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, Mr Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Mr Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan said.

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Nation



Neither was there any India in the earliest times since over 9000 years ago. Why restrict it to only 150 years.

Legal interpretation is more complicated than merely stating this is a religion and this is a sect. This topic has been discussed many times in this forum, you yourself opened a thread some time ago.

If you want to dissect, lets start with the definition of minority, in legal sense:

Eastern Book Company - Practical Lawyer

“On reading the paragraph contained in the original fundamental rights, it will be noticed that the term ‘minority’ was based therein not in the technical sense of the word ‘minority’ as we have been accustomed to use it for the purposes of certain political safeguards, such as representation in the legislature, representation in the services and so on. The word is used not merely to indicate the minority in the technical sense of the word, it is also used to cover minorities which are not minorities in the technical sense, but which are, nonetheless, minorities in the culture and linguistic sense.11 For instance, for the purposes of this Article 23, if a certain number of people from Madras came and settled in Bombay for certain purposes, they would be, although not a minority in the technical sense, cultural minorities. Similarly, if a certain number of Maharashtrians went from Maharashtra and settled in Bengal, although they may not be minorities in the technical sense, they would be cultural and linguistic minorities in Bengal. The Article intends to give protection in the matter of culture, language and script not only to a minority technically, but also to a minority in the wider sense of the term, as I have explained just now. That is the reason why we dropped the word ‘minority’ because we felt that the word might be interpreted in the narrow sense of the term, when the intention of the House, when it passed Article 18, was to use the word ‘minority’ in a much wider sense, so as to give cultural protection to those who were technically not minorities but minorities nonetheless.”

If you read the article further, it explains the inclusion of Sikh/Jain/Buddhist religions under Hindu acts:

It is to be noted that Article 25(1) deals with “religion”. The “Hindu religious institutions” referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause (2) must, therefore, be confined to the “Hindu religion”. This would necessarily mean that “Hindu religious institutions” would not cover the institutions of religions other than the Hindu religion. In Explanation II, the reference to “persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion” meant that persons following these religions were not legally persons following the Hindu religion. They would not have come within the coverage of Article 25(2)(b) but for Explanation II. The object of Explanation II, therefore, was “to widen the concept that Hindu religious institutions were broad-based and Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism although separate religions could enjoy the right of temple entry”. This object would not have been achieved if Explanation II had not been enacted. In other words, because of Sikhism, Jainism or Buddhism being separate religions, they could not have been included among the Hindus in Article 25(2)(b) and, therefore, it was absolutely necessary to enact Explanation II to give the followers of Sikh, Jain and Buddhist religions the benefit of Article 25(2)(b) even though they belonged to religions other than Hinduism and their religious institutions would not be included in “Hindu religious institutions” but for Explanation II.

The Constitution Review Committee headed by Justice Venkata Chaliah recommended deletion of Explanation II to Article 25 so that the benefit of social welfare and reforms be provided to all classes and sections of these religions. In para 3.23.2 it states that after omitting Explanation II to Article 25, the sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of that Article should be reworded to read as follows:16

“(b) providing for social welfare or reform or the throwing open of Hindu, Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of these religions”.

Thus, in view of the Constitution Review Committee also Jain is a separate religion and not a part of Hinduism.

Than coming back to the decision of Supreme court, its decision has to remain within the bounds of constitution, which considers Sikh/Jain/Buddhism to be separate religion. That is, SC on itself cannot place these three within Hinduism. To understand the decision, you would have to understand how law treats the minorities, and what are the consequences/requirements for a certain community to be called religious minority in India.

Keep in mind that the Indian constitution doesn't consider defining a religion to be its job. And that the 'father' of Indian constitution was a Buddhist, with a dislike towards Hinduism that forced his conversion.

 

[Nassr]

WHo is this @Nassr guy with his weird delusions? Hinduism was huge in Pakistani Punjab and Sindh before they got invaded and raped by Arabs and Afghans, and these cowards converted to Islam to please their invaders.

If Hinduism was not a big influence is Pakistan, maybe these convert slaves of Pakistan should ask themselves why the biggest city of their country is named after the eldest son of Bhagwan Ram (Lahore)... I swear this forum is filled with some really ret*rded and delusional P@kis... hope not all of them are like this in real life lol



Rig Veda is anything but monotheistic, and same with Buddhism. Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think that you are stupid, then open your mouth and remove all doubt whatsoever

Hinduism was never as huge in Sindh and Punjab as you state that it was. Sindh has more historical Buddhist Stupas and other Buddhist structures than Hindu structures. Almost same is the case in Punjab and KPK. The Arabs in Sindh in 712 AD were supported by Jats, Meds and Buddhists who were in majority against a Brahmin Raja who was a ruthless tyrant.

Lahore had different names in different times and because Indian Hindus beliefs that it was named after Lord Ram, let it be. It does not in any way undermine the fact that Indian Hinduism was never popular since the earliest times and this is a historical fact.

There are many many Hindus who believe that Rig Veda is monotheistic in nature. If at all there any delusions, these are Indian Hindu delusions of Hindu grandeur that never was.

 

[Vinod2070]

Oh man, a convert apostate (who call the religion of his own ancestors as jahiliya) wants to tell us about our own religion!

May be we can explain to him the contents of the Quran....

 

[Nassr]

This is what is taught to you in your textbooks and then there is the reality.



There is lot of fakeness in the whole ideological shallow structure that has been built on lies...

Indian school and college text books spread communal hatred and this is accepted by the Indians themselves.

Indian Text Books Raise Communal Hatred

Narratives of Religious Nationalism in Text Books | Indology Research Blog

while the communal interpretation of history was delegitimised at the research and college levels by the sheer weight of secular scholarship in mainstream historical writing, it continued to find articulation in school textbooks, right through the years when the Congress was in power, and exert control over the process of education. Most history textbooks, for example, uncritically accepted the periodisation of history, popularised by imperialist historians, into the Hindu, Muslim and British periods. Hindu rulers were projected as having been tolerant and enlightened; Muslim rulers as bigoted and as the persecutors of Hindus. Another common bias, which flew in the face of all evidence, was that the Aryans were the original inhabitants of India.

The first clutch of biases mentioned in the report pertain to the identification of the outsider, or the foreigner, very early in Indian history, and the resistance to them shown by the people of India (obviously Hindus). Thus, the Aryans were the original inhabitants of India, they built the Harappan civilisation, and the achievements of ancient Indian civilisation surpassed all others. (For example, in High School Itihas Bhag 1, one of the sentences changed reads thus: "With the finds of bones of horses, their toys and yagna altars, scholars are beginning to believe that the people of the Harappa and Vedic civilisations were the same," page 43.) There is, of course, no historical basis for this.

the report notes that it is "meant to ignore and to denigrate the cultural development during the medieval period as something un- or anti-Indian, the entire medieval period, in any case, being a period of foreign rule and, hence of struggle for national independence." India's freedom struggle began 2,500 years ago, the textbooks assert, and this "national resistance" had been neglected in history textbooks because of a "Western conspiracy". Those figures in Indian history who fought for their own kingdoms become, in textbooks, fighters for national liberation.

The NCERT report makes the point that the books that were being used before 1992 were also communally biased and factually incorrect. But the changes made in 1992 gave them a "blatantly communal orientation". The period of medieval Indian history, in particular, "abounds in historical falsehoods", says the report, giving several examples from the revised textbooks. (An example of material added in High School Itihas Bhag 1: "The Indian society during the Sultanate period was divided into two main classes - ruling or Muslim class and ruled or non-Muslims of whom Hindus were the majority" (page 281). Or: "Hindu was merely the payer of taxes. In spite of being conquered in the political field, Hindus did not lose courage. To regain their lost independence, they went on raising their voice from time to time.

Children, regardless of their religious background, have to recite the Saraswathi Vandana in the mornings and the Bhojan Mantra before their afternoon meal. Muslim children are often asked to lead the prayers. There are punishments meted out for not praying.

"A separate section entitled 'Connected Account of Muslim Politics from 1920-34' is provided in Class X history book. This is likely to promote a presentation that would treat Muslims as a distinct, homogeneous entity with a distinctively separate role from that of the nationalist movement. It is not even called 'Muslim Communal Politics'. This will encourage the tendency of singling Muslim communalism and ignoring Hindu communalism and other tendencies."

After the May nuclear explosions at Pokhran, school textbooks have been revised to justify the blasts as well as serve the function of indoctrination on the benefits that have allegedly flowed from the event.

Writings of RSS ideologues on subjects ranging from matters of science to ruminations over the loss of the Sindhu (Indus) river to the "other side" have been given substantial importance in school texts.

Tarun Vijay laments over the loss of the Indus and wonders why it does not flow in Bharat like the other rivers.

The 20-page section highlights his belief in "Akhand Bharat" which was all for dissolving the 1947 Partition

"Students carry forward a set of communal biases until the post-graduate stage.

He said that in a Class XI textbook on political parties in India a section on the Akali Dal had recently been modified substantially. Earlier the party had been projected in a poor light, giving it an anti-national image, but after it entered into an alliance with the BJP appropriate deletions were made.

 

[madooxno9]

After going through this thread any sane historian would commit suicide .