Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[PlanetWarrior]

Radcliffe was sent by almighty God to ensure that the boundaries of the real Pakistan which was drawn some 10 000 years earlier was now made official in the map of the world

 

[Nassr]

Radcliffe was sent by almighty God to ensure that the boundaries of the real Pakistan which was drawn some 10 000 years earlier was now made official in the map of the world

The Two Nations Theory which became one of the founding principles of creation of Pakistan and partition of British India in 1947, in historical hindsight, helped create status quo ante where history merely repeated itself.

From Meluhha To Pakistan: The Embodiment Of A Civilization - OpEd Eurasia Review

 

[Carl Johnson]

Indians continuously and incessantly talk about an Indian civilization. Can some one tell me which civilization are they talking about as Indus Valley Civilization is not even closely related to anything Indian and is not Indian in any capacity.

A large part of IVC lies in modern India and ivc is called an indian civilization all over the world . On the other hand urdu is not even closely related to anything pakistani and is not pakistani in any capacity but still you made it your national language .

 

[INDIC]

A large part of IVC lies in modern India and ivc is called an indian civilization all over the world . On the other hand urdu is not even closely related to anything pakistani and is not pakistani in any capacity but still you made it your national language .

Shan snowwhite was claiming Urdu originated from Punjabi.  

The Two Nations Theory which became one of the founding principles of creation of Pakistan and partition of British India in 1947, in historical hindsight, helped create status quo ante where history merely repeated itself.

From Meluhha To Pakistan: The Embodiment Of A Civilization - OpEd Eurasia Review

This should have been the official language of Meluhha instead of the Indian language Urdu.

Lahnda language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lahnda /ˈlɑːndə/ or Western Punjabi are those Indo-Aryan(real name should be Pako-Aryan ) varieties in parts of Pakistani Punjab that are transitional between Eastern Punjabi and Sindhi.

 

[Nassr]

A large part of IVC lies in modern India and ivc is called an indian civilization all over the world . On the other hand urdu is not even closely related to anything pakistani and is not pakistani in any capacity but still you made it your national language .

A small part of IVC spill over into India and calling it an Indian civilization is a misnomer which will be corrected in due course.

What we do inside Pakistan is our business. Please take care of your own identity particularly when Mr. Katju had claimed that over 90 % of Indians are not original Indians and emigrated from foreign lands.

 

[Carl Johnson]

A small part of IVC spill over into India and calling it an Indian civilization is a misnomer which will be corrected in due course.

What we do inside Pakistan is our business. Please take care of your own identity particularly when Mr. Katju had claimed that over 90 % of Indians are not original Indians and emigrated from foreign lands.

IVC sites have been found upto western UP and northern maharashtra . Out of the 48 major IVC sites found so far , 30 are in India . So India ideally should have more claim on IVC than pakistan

We all migrated out of africa ! Didn't we ?

 

[INDIC]

IVC sites have been found upto western UP and northern maharashtra . Out of the 48 major IVC sites found so far , 30 are in India . So India ideally should have more claim on IVC than pakistan

We all migrated out of africa ! Didn't we ?

The Pattern of IVC also shows people were migrating Eastward Inside India. Most of the sites of Mature Harappan period are inside India while earliest one inside Pakistan were abandoned.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Shan, do you write textbooks for Pakistani schools and universities ? If so, now wonder your nation is confused  

IVC sites have been found upto western UP and northern maharashtra . Out of the 48 major IVC sites found so far , 30 are in India . So India ideally should have more claim on IVC than pakistan

We all migrated out of africa ! Didn't we ?

According to Shan's historical narratives, the current day Indians migrated out of Africa and the current day Pakistanis migrated from Central Asia. He goes on further to expound that there were two cradles of civilization, namely Africa and Central Asia thus rubbishing all those archeological findings over hundreds of years. Off-course he has no scientific formula for his hypothesis since it all makes sense to him when he looks at the martial stature of the average Pakistani compared to the average Indian. Now that he has established that Pakistanis emerged from this new cradle of civilization in Central Asia and Indians and the rest of the world emerged from the cradle of civilization of Africa and "Lucy", he goes on to deduct that the two nation theory actually originated when people first moved into India and Pakistan

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Where did the Arabs come into this.

For it was in the Dark Age that religious persecution began in India. Monasteries were demolished, monks were banished, and books were burnt: and wherever the Rajputs became rulers, Buddhist edifices went down and Hindu temples arose. By the end of the 10th century, Buddhism was practically stamped out from India. [R.C.Dutt, Epochs of Indian History, quoted by Swami Dharmatirtha, p. 108]

For every source you give for Rajputs destroying Buddhist shrines I can give you a hundred where Momeens did the same thing. Also the your sense of morals is seriously retarded as you had to bring one wrong to justify another.

At the same time you completely missed the point that it was in a Hindu state that Buddhism first spread. But then we know this is not out of any love for Lord Buddha. A 'hero' would happily smash his idol and be revered by millions of folks like you. Perhaps that's the reason why you consider Khilji(who destroyed Nalanda, thanks) as a great general and we consider Ashoka as Great. There's a huge difference. But then don't worry you won't be able to see it. Your religious hatred tinted glasses would miss the way Gautama(heard of him?) became an ascetic and discovered his Dharma.

Besides you did not give a crucial information - RC Dutt was a pre independence British Indian historian. Which means he did not have much access to path breaking research of the 70s that unearthed many hidden mysteries of the Indian(err sorry Pakistani) civilization

 

[Indischer]

May i know which ignorant statement hurt your lil heart?

You should read more about Islam before making such stupid comparison. Visiting graves is not part of religious obligation and people visit graves to pray for dead ones and for pious people or saints. They don't visit graves to worship graves or saints. They don't consider saints as image of God and all such BS. There are few idiot who go to extreme on such mazaar and dargah but its because of illiteracy and ignorance about teaching of Islam. Hinduism also influences some people villagers especially in India where they live side by side with Hindus and still have believe in certain superstitions of Hinduism

The suggestion is mutual. You should read more about your own history and Hinduism before creating such stupid threads. Quote any of your own words here on such subjects and they reek of ignorance.

And may I ask you one more thing? What's so wrong with idol worship? If you don't like idol worship, don't do it. As it is, the concept of God is after all man's creation.

 

[kingkobra]

The RigVeda is anything but monotheistic. Vedic Religion was basically nature-worship with a specific deity in control of elements like wind, water, rains, Sun etc. Indra, Vayu, Varuna, Savitr, Rudra, Mitra etc are among the various elemental deities mentioned in the text. And please, since when is Shaivism monotheistic? There are 5 "primary" Gods that are honoured more over the rest in Shaivism. Buddhism and Jainism are not monotheistic either. Rather, they're sects that border on Atheism!

It does not matter what a certain Swami Dayanand Saraswati thinks about Hinduism or any other religions. Those are his personal views. Going by the same yardstick, do all Muslims follow/believe everything that an Ayatollah says?

Just like there are sects in Islam, there are sects in Hinduism too. The only difference is that Shaivites won't kill Vaishnavites over this petty squabble.

Still, if it can help with his wet dreams, the OP can go ahead and sleep tight with thoughts that Hinduism was never established north of the Radcliffe Line in over 4000 years.

This goes on to show how little hindus know about their oldest holy book.

Indra, varuna, agni are not deities or devas they are just names of almighty Ishwar.

Indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān,
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ
"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.

Rig Veda 1.164.46

The Vedas refer to not 33 crore Devatas(Deities) but 33 types (Koti in Sanskrit) of Devatas. They are explained in Shatpath Brahman very clearly. These include -
8 Vasus (Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Sky, Moon, Sun, Stars/ Planets) that form components of universe where we live,
10 Life Forces in our body or Prana (Prana, Apana, Vyana, Udana, Samaana, Naga, Kurma, Kukala, Devadatta) and 1 Soul called Rudra,
12 Aditya or months of year,
1 Vidyut or Electromagnetic force that is of tremendous use to us
1 Yajna or constant noble selfless deeds done by humans

The master of these 33 Devatas is the Mahadeva or Ishwar who alone is to be worshipped as per 14th Kanda of Shatpath Brahman.

 

[INDIC]

Where did the Arabs come into this.

For it was in the Dark Age that religious persecution began in India. Monasteries were demolished, monks were banished, and books were burnt: and wherever the Rajputs became rulers, Buddhist edifices went down and Hindu temples arose. By the end of the 10th century, Buddhism was practically stamped out from India. [R.C.Dutt, Epochs of Indian History, quoted by Swami Dharmatirtha, p. 108]

For every source you give for Rajputs destroying Buddhist shrines I can give you a hundred where Momeens did the same thing. Also the your sense of morals is seriously retarded as you had to bring one wrong to justify another.

Buddhism saw decline at the time of the invasion of White Huns(Hephthalites) in 5th century AD and rest of it was destroyed during the Turkic invasion since conquest of Ghauri. Claiming Rajputs destroyed Buddhism is another case of faking the history, many historians believe Rajputs are the descendants of Scythians.

 

[Nassr]

For every source you give for Rajputs destroying Buddhist shrines I can give you a hundred where Momeens did the same thing. Also the your sense of morals is seriously retarded as you had to bring one wrong to justify another.

At the same time you completely missed the point that it was in a Hindu state that Buddhism first spread. But then we know this is not out of any love for Lord Buddha. A 'hero' would happily smash his idol and be revered by millions of folks like you. Perhaps that's the reason why you consider Khilji(who destroyed Nalanda, thanks) as a great general and we consider Ashoka as Great. There's a huge difference. But then don't worry you won't be able to see it. Your religious hatred tinted glasses would miss the way Gautama(heard of him?) became an ascetic and discovered his Dharma.

Besides you did not give a crucial information - RC Dutt was a pre independence British Indian historian. Which means he did not have much access to path breaking research of the 70s that unearthed many hidden mysteries of the Indian(err sorry Pakistani) civilization

What is momeens?

Ashoka killed and plundered the people of India. Whole of Kalinga was plundered and destroyed. Ashoka's own later edicts state that about 100,000 people were killed on the Kalinga side during the war which Ashoka himself waged against them.

Could you please highlight the path breaking research of 1970s, which revealed the mysteries of Pakistani civilization. It may help educate me. Thanks.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Ok beta, now take this cookie

I would agree with his basis for making such comments, that the people of India and Pakistan are different set of peoples. They do not have the same culture, they have not followed the same religion since thousands of years, their genetic admix is different, their land is different since thousands of years and they have remained separate political entities for large part of known history. It is the Indians who have remained segregated for most part of their history except during the times of Mauryans, Muslims and the British. Please look towards seeking your own history rather than commenting about everything else.

 

[Nassr]

Shan, do you write textbooks for Pakistani schools and universities ? If so, now wonder your nation is confused  


According to Shan's historical narratives, the current day Indians migrated out of Africa and the current day Pakistanis migrated from Central Asia. He goes on further to expound that there were two cradles of civilization, namely Africa and Central Asia thus rubbishing all those archeological findings over hundreds of years. Off-course he has no scientific formula for his hypothesis since it all makes sense to him when he looks at the martial stature of the average Pakistani compared to the average Indian. Now that he has established that Pakistanis emerged from this new cradle of civilization in Central Asia and Indians and the rest of the world emerged from the cradle of civilization of Africa and "Lucy", he goes on to deduct that the two nation theory actually originated when people first moved into India and Pakistan

I would agree with his basis for making such comments, that the people of India and Pakistan are different set of peoples. They do not have the same culture, they have not followed the same religion since thousands of years, their genetic admix is different, their land is different since thousands of years and they have remained separate political entities for large part of known history. It is the Indians who have remained segregated for most part of their history except during the times of Mauryans, Muslims and the British. Please look towards seeking your own history rather than commenting about everything else.