Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[Indischer]

My question is isn't lingual studies empirical?

Obviously, the language utilized for comparison will have a few fixed markers around which the timelines will be fixed. Thus the results will be fairly accurate. The timespan estimates might differ by a few centuries in case of archaic language analysis, but that's to be expected. Language studies are a subjective field.

LOL is it this hard to understand? Did the so called 'lingual study of RigVedic Sanskrit' state that there was no Hinduism before RigVeda or religions followed in Dwarka or IVC were not Hinduism?

The burden of proof lies with the claimant dude. With the proof available so far, that's about as far as Hinduism gets. What about your pre-vedic "established chain"? It might throw up a few proofs that ancient Dwarkans were Hindus

 

[Nassr]

According to some Historians,Egyptians do have connections with Indic religions. It is connected to Islamic civilization too.For further info ask Mr.Herodotus

Herodotus could not even find the difference between River Kabul and River Indus. He is more famous for the dog sized ants that he recounts from the Indian desert which were used to dig out the gold. I am surprised that you seek Herodotus for historical references.

 

[Fireurimagination]

It is primarily related to how you interpret history. 1857 was war of independence for you but for the British it was a mutiny. Religions like Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism etc etc are considered separate religions all over the world except in India. In India these are taken as part of Dharmic format and thus part of Hinduism which even the followers of Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism etc do not agree with.

What I have stated here is not a result of an obsession. I have highlighted historical facts. Some of these historical facts apparently come in conflict with your beliefs and that is probably the reason that your reaction is so offensive.

Shia and Sunni followers, both consider themselves to be Muslims and is largely accepted by both sects in the manner accept by a small disenchanted faction. In case of Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism, it is the Hindus only who state that these religions are part of Hinduism, whereas Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists vehemently reject such a characterization.

You are wrong when you state that West Pakistan had 20 % Hindu population. Here is the correct percentage of Hindu population just before the partition:

W. Punjab: 9% Hindu, 11% Sikh

Sindh: 10% Hindu, 5% Sikh

NWFP: 2.5% Hindu, 2.5% Sikh

Baluchistan: 3% Hindu

According to UN estimates, 50% or more of the above migrated to India after the announcement of partition of British India.

Good that means the majority who betrayed there religion and converted, were slaughtered and raped by Muslim invaders in today's Pakistan were not Hindus

 

[bronxbull]

not convincing.

 

[Indischer]

not convincing.

It might be if you read the analysis. In any case, a Hindu Supremacist will never believe it.

 

[bronxbull]

nope.

 

[Nassr]

There is a very interesting aspect that has emerged from the discussion that has gone on here so far. The word "Hindu" is neither a Sanskrit word nor is this word found in any of the native dialects and languages of India. It should be noted that "Hindu" is not a religious word at all. There is no reference of the word "Hindu" in the ancient Vedic Scriptures. Because the Persians could not pronounce S of river Sindhu, the called it Hindu. The Zoroastrian scripture Avesta refer to the word "Hindu" as a geographic name rather than a religious name. The ancient Greeks and Armenians followed the same pronunciation, and thus, gradually the name stuck. For the Arabs it became Al Hind and later became Hindustan.

The key element is that the name Hindu was given to all the people living in a geographical area irrespective of casts, creed or religions of all those people. Even Al Beruni in 11th century AD identified some Pashto speaking tribes as Hindus whereas those tribes infact followed Buddhism.

Apparently, the Indian Hindus have narrowed this concept to identify a Hindu as the one who only follows a broad-based Hindu religion and included all those separate religions emanating from within India as Hindu sub-sects. Later, such identification was transformed to Sanatana Dharma in order to replace the foreign origin of the word Hindu with a Vedic reformation.

This seems to be the apparent historical basis of the so-called broad-based concept of Hinduism which identifies all religions emanating from within this geographical framework as part of or sub-sects of Hinduism.

 

[Fireurimagination]

The burden of proof lies with the claimant dude. With the proof available so far, that's about as far as Hinduism gets. What about your pre-vedic "established chain"? It might throw up a few proofs that ancient Dwarkans were Hindus

LOL and where is the proof that RigVeda is beginning of Hinduism? And that there was no Hinduism before the RigVeda? As stated previously IVC and Dwarka has many similarities to Hinduism. Common sense also states that most probably Hinduism evolved from there due to common geography and the fact that religion of something vast as IVC from Afghanistan to India couldn't vanish in thin air and the fact that it's commonsense that there was something before RigVeda from which it evolved.

 

[Indischer]

LOL and where is the proof that RigVeda is beginning of Hinduism? And that there was no Hinduism before the RigVeda? As stated previously IVC and Dwarka has many similarities to Hinduism. Common sense also states that most probably Hinduism evolved from there due to common geography and the fact that religion of something vast as IVC from Afghanistan to India couldn't vanish in thin air and the fact that it's commonsense that there was something before RigVeda from which it evolved.

If you care to read the previous posts, you'll find enough points on why the Vedas are definitive proof of Hinduism's genesis. Common sense also suggests that to talk any more on this with you is futile. Good luck practicing the religion of the Dwarkans. Adios for now.

 

[Nassr]

Good that means the majority who betrayed there religion and converted, were slaughtered and raped by Muslim invaders in today's Pakistan were not Hindus

As if the Indians following the same religion have not done horrific things to their own, within the confines of India. Starting from Rig Veda to other scriptures to Mahabharata, the main theme has mostly been war. Let me qualify this with a reference here:

The number killed in the Mahabharata War

April 9, 2009 — Hariprasad

My previous article on the Akshouhini gave rise to some interesting discussions in the comments section. Sri Chiraan rightly pointed out that the actual number of people who participated in the war had to be much more. It was, after all, the “Maha”bharata war!

I recalled reading in the Tatparya Nirnaya that the number 18 Akshouhinis was just the core army. The actual army *had* to be much bigger! So I got down to doing some research on this and yes, the Bhaarata has captured this detail as well. We find details of the actual fatalities (and survivors) in the war in the Stri Parva. The Pandavas, along with Krishna, come to meet Dhritharashtra and Gandhari. At one point, Dhritharashtra asks Yudhishthira if he knows the number of people dead and number of survivors. The numbers that Dharma reveals are

• Fatalities : 1 billion, 660 million and 20,000!!!
• Survivors : 240,165

Today’s world population is 6 billion, 700 odd million. Even in today’s terms, about 25% of the population got wiped out in the war!

This piece of information is in the Stri Parva (11th Parva) of the Mahabharata. I reproduce below the original shloka(s) and Ganguly’s translation of the same.

dashayutanam ayutam sahasrani cha vimshatihi |
kotyah shashtishcha shat chaiva ye asmin rajamrudhe hataha ||

alakshyaanam tu veeraanam sahasraani chaturdasha |
dasha chaanyani rajendra shataam shashtis cha pancha cha ||
“One billion 660 million and 20,000 men have fallen in this battle. Of the heroes that have escaped, the number is 240,165″

Truly, the war was a Maha Yuddha!

The number killed in the Mahabharata War | Anandatirtha Prathishtana

 

[Black Widow]

Regarding point 2. I don't know if you've read about any lingual study of Sanskrit. I've already repeated them on this thread before. Read them if interested. Basically, the Sanskrit of the RigVeda is older than the Sanskrit of the other three. It's older and has greater similarities to Avestan, the Iranian language(In fact, it's the closest language to RigVedic sanskrit).

Regarding point 3. You are confusing cultures with genetics. Australians may be genetically extensions of South Indians, but they're very distant culturally. And how on Earth did Greek borrow Indian knowledge? Care to elaborate? The Roma have migated from today's Rajastan area only about a 1000 years back. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of an Indian identity forming 10,000 years back, forget 30,000....

Regarding 4. I'm better served following Brahmacharya
.

You are right, But that doesn't means that Rigveda was written by one person/team. Though I may agree that it may be compiled by one team. And it may be true that RigVeda was compiled much earlier than others..

Before Allah and Jesus was born, religious scavenging was not so common. Different culture use to do business from each other.


Culture evolves , Both Aboroiganals and Indian had similar culture, we evolve differently from them. A North Indian Hindu is culturally evolved differently than South Indian Hindu. But his identity as Hindu or Indian is not lost..

If you care to read the previous posts, you'll find enough points on why the Vedas are definitive proof of Hinduism's genesis. Common sense also suggests that to talk any more on this with you is futile. Good luck practicing the religion of the Dwarkans. Adios for now.

You are wrong here, there was a Vedic society/culture.. But it was not begining of Hinduism. It was a phase in Hinduism..

Vedic society was small subset of vast Hindu culture/..

 

[Fireurimagination]

If you care to read the previous posts, you'll find enough points on why the Vedas are definitive proof of Hinduism's genesis. Common sense also suggests that to talk any more on this with you is futile. Good luck practicing the religion of the Dwarkans. Adios for now.

LOL you can also believe that Vedas are not pat of Hinduism and actually it was some alien religion which died and vanished in thin air, Hinduism actually stated when Aasaram Bapu revealed the lal kitab amrit to the mankind

 

[Black Widow]

LOL you can also believe that Vedas are not pat of Hinduism and actually it was some alien religion which died and vanished in thin air, Hinduism actually stated when Aasaram Bapu revealed the lal kitab amrit to the mankind

Vedas are one part of Hinduism.. It's not like Islam where religion start with some book... There was hinudism before Vedas compiled..

 

[Nassr]

Yeah? Go check out how many Hindu temples exist in Pak and how many Buddhist ones do. If Hinduism was not practiced in Pak, these temples must have been made by ghosts.

You will be surprised to find out that there actually are many many times more Buddhist structures than Hindu structures that are present in Pakistan.

Before British rule, people of present day Pak were referred to as Indians. Even during British rule the term British Indian was not used for people but only for the empire and govt. One of the places where Vedas are alleged to have been compiled is Punjab (most of which is in Pak) and it is Vedas which have the first recorded usage of 'Bharat'. Even during Muslim rule, your ancestors referred to Pak as a part of "Hindustan", clearly contradicting your claims that Hinduism was not practiced there.

Please read post 637.

And all these sovereign states were part of Indian civilisation. Civilization does not mean a political union. Go see a good non-Pakistani dictionary.

India did not have any civilization. The IVC was and is a Pakistani heritage. Thank you for stating that civilization does not mean political union - unity in diversity does not qualify as a civilization in earnest.

Each and every neutral historian refers to India as one of the oldest civilizations and Pak as part of it but we should not believe them but rather believe you as you are biggest history genius who ever lived, is it? Staple cuisine like roti-sabji and daal-chaval are of Indian origin, I wasn't talking about Mughlai obviously. As I mentioned earlier, civilization does not mean political union. China wasn't united many a times in its history, but it is still a very old civilization. They have got a good animated map here -
History of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Western world is not under one rule but they still form a common 'western civilization'.

I agree with you, the staple food of roti-sabzi and daal-chawal are of Indian origin or was it an Indian cuisine.

You are the ones who are rewriting history to find a place for yourself in world history but failing miserably.

Yeah so? Shiva is a Hindu deity and Shaivism is one of the most common forms of Hinduism. If you have any doubts, you can ask any Shaivite whether or not he is a Hindu. As I said earlier, Hinduism is not a religion in the true sense of the word so you will not find any fixed set of beliefs that all Hindus follow. Religion is a very narrow concept while Hinduism is a very broad philosophy.

We are correcting the history to bring out the true perspective and not the hardline sham created by some people in India.

Vedas are one part of Hinduism.. It's not like Islam where religion start with some book... There was hinudism before Vedas compiled..

An unproven historical fallacy.

 

[Vinod2070]

It is primarily related to how you interpret history. 1857 was war of independence for you but for the British it was a mutiny. Religions like Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism etc etc are considered separate religions all over the world except in India. In India these are taken as part of Dharmic format and thus part of Hinduism which even the followers of Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism etc do not agree with.

What I have stated here is not a result of an obsession. I have highlighted historical facts. Some of these historical facts apparently come in conflict with your beliefs and that is probably the reason that your reaction is so offensive.

Yes, it is about interpretation and it is about facts. I think you are wrong on many facts and the interpretation is heavily jaundiced.

Dharmic format and part of Hinduism are different things. We have a concept of panth (different paths to the divine) which doesn't exist in exclusivist/supremacist religions like Islam for which all non Muslims are automatically hell bound.

You are not really expected to understand this very basic difference between Dharmic religions and yours. This is a part of your very being, just as not hating anyone (or condemning them to eternal hellfire) for being born into any religion is part of my very being. I can't look at such a supposed divine as merciful and will only laugh at his demands to call him "most merciful".

Shia and Sunni followers, both consider themselves to be Muslims and is largely accepted by both sects in the manner accept by a small disenchanted faction. In case of Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism, it is the Hindus only who state that these religions are part of Hinduism, whereas Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists vehemently reject such a characterization.

Yet, these "Muslims" call each other "wajib-ul-qatl" and make sure the journey to eternal hellfire is quickened. It is within Sunnis and Shia as well, leave alone between Shia Vs Sunni vs Ahmedia...

And you see no such thing in any Dharmic religions (supposed different religions, really just different panths).

You are wrong when you state that West Pakistan had 20 % Hindu population. Here is the correct percentage of Hindu population just before the partition:

W. Punjab: 9% Hindu, 11% Sikh

Sindh: 10% Hindu, 5% Sikh

NWFP: 2.5% Hindu, 2.5% Sikh

Baluchistan: 3% Hindu

You are wrong. Check the post#617 regarding the difference between the 1941 and 1951 census and the almost complete ethnic cleansing that it denotes.

An ethnic cleansing that puts Bosnia to shame.

According to UN estimates, 50% or more of the above migrated to India after the announcement of partition of British India.

They were forced out as part of the ethnic cleansing. And reducing in population share ever since.

In India we had almost the same Muslim share at the time of partition and you see a different trend because we are not bigots and because we have a great Dharmic tolerant civilization.