Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[Fireurimagination]

Please go throught he previous posts on this thread dude.
Rudra, A Lord of Animals was already present in the RigVeda. Pushan, another RigVedic God, was also worshipped for feeding cattle and protecting men from wild animals. Apart from the seal of a man seated near animals, there is no evidence from IVC of them having worshipped this God, nor are there any religious texts recovered from IVC so far. Shiva, a God mentioned in the Krishna Yajurveda, ended up receiving the epithet of Rudra. The Vedic culture was strictly propagated by the priestly classes of the Aryans, and borrowed very little from, if anything at all, from the IVC.
Shakti is an addition to the Vedic culture that happened much later, after the composition of the four Vedas, and around the time of advent of Shaivism.
There have been no temples found in IVC, let alone temple complexes! Nor has any IVC deity been identified so far.

I am not talking about RigVeda, I am talking about pre-RigVeda and I am not talking about your understanding about the issue, I am talking about what researchers believe. Researchers do believe that IVC people worshipped Lord of Animals (pre-RigVeda) and Goddesses (pre-RigVeda). Go through the links that I have provided.

 

[Indischer]

I am not talking about RigVeda, I am talking about pre-RigVeda and I am not talking about your understanding about the issue, I am talking about what researchers believe. Researchers do believe that IVC people worshipped Lord of Animals (pre-RigVeda) and Goddesses (pre-RigVeda). Go through the links that I have provided.

The same researchers haven't found any evidence of any House of Worship in any of the IVC cities. What they've found are figurines which MAY have been worshipped. The same researchers also are unsure that whatever Gods the IVC people worshipped found their way into Vedic culture.

There may have been a religion in IVC in pre-RigVedic times, but there's no proof it influenced Hinduism. It may have been an indigenous Indian religion that disappeared with the decline of Harappan cities.

 

[Fireurimagination]

The same researchers haven't found any evidence of any House of Worship in any of the IVC cities. What they've found are figurines which MAY have been worshipped. The same researchers also are unsure that whatever Gods the IVC people worshipped found their way into Vedic culture.

There may have been a religion in IVC in pre-RigVedic times, but there's no proof it influenced Hinduism. It may have been an indigenous Indian religion that disappeared with the decline of Harappan cities.

What has been found is more important than what hasn't been found yet. The fun part is today Hinduism holds both Vedic and non-Vedic characteristics. The IVC people may have worshipped Shiva, Shakti, Fire, Nature, Universal Consciousness or they have been Atheists these all have have made way to current day Hinduism. The culture and religion of something as vast as IVC couldn't just have vanished in thin air, so it's very likely to have merged with the current day Hinduism.

 

[Thirdfront]

You are moving into a zugzwang.

Irrigation System in the IVC

As is happening these days, the people of IVC also followed varied methods for irrigation system. Rivers, canals, floods, monsoons, water reservoirs like dams etc, were all used for irrigation by the people of IVC. The archeology does support discovery of canals and other water preservation methods used in irrigation system followed by the people of IVC. Therefore, stating that a large scale migration took place due to decrease of monsoons does not hold enough water and seems a rather misplaced assumption.

An extensive canal network, used for irrigation, has however also been discovered in Lothal, which is an IVC site.

World History Timeline - Ancient India - Indus Valley Civilization

The people of Indus prospered on the foundations of an agriculture based system of irrigation and fertility, maintained by silt-bearing floods – and not necessarily and primarily only monsoons. Also, the excessive floods may have been a major cause of their movement and not only the easterly transfer of monsoons. This was a river based economy and not monsoon based like India’s economy is still dependent on.

ECONOMICS OF THE INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION

The Indus civilization apparently evolved from the villages of neighbours or predecessors, using the Mesopotamian model of irrigated agriculture with sufficient skill to reap the advantages of the spacious and fertile Indus River valley while controlling the formidable annual flood that simultaneously fertilizes and destroys.

Indus civilization -- Encyclopedia Britannica

A major governmental accomplishment achieved was their massive irrigation network.

Indus valley civilization unfinished

The evidence from Allahdino [Sindh, Pakistan] suggests the Harappans knew irrigation according to Fairservis who describes 'Harappans as master hydraulic engineers'. He suggests well water irrigation could be possible. The Great Bath and its covered drains and drains at Mohenjodaro are examples of conservation and water management. The evidence from Dholavira indicates the Harappans were excellent in water management and conservation. Frankfort (1985) located a canal in the Ghaggar-Harka plain as old as the Harappan times. The availability of water tanks at Dholvaria dams suggests reservoirs for potable water and bunds for small irrigation also. The dockyard at Lothal is another excellent example of creating a water body for berthing of small boats. The Harappan sites e.g, Kalibangan, Lothal, Mohenjodaro have pucca brick lined wells.

Harappan Architecture and Civil Engineering

Bharatvarsh

According to the scriptural description of the brahmand the entire earth planet is called Bharatvarsh.

Bhartiya History - Definition of Bharatvarsh

Location of Meluhha

Numerous Mesopotamian documents, spanning several centuries, refer to the lands of Meluhha, Makkan, and Dilmun. Modern scholars identify Meluhha with the Indus Valley, Makkan with the Makran and Omani coasts, and Dilmun with Bahrain, Failaka, and the adjacent Arabian coastline.

Center and Periphery: Indus Valley Civilization

Harbors and Seaports of IVC

Harappan seaports along the Makran coast, such as Sutkagendor, Sotka Koh, and Bala Kot.

Indus Valley Civilization: The Demise of Utopia

A notable feature in the geographical extension of the Mature Harappan culture is the string of trading outposts found along the coast of Makran. Three of these. at Balakot, Sokhta Koh and Sut-kagendor, have been studied in detail during the last two decades of archaeological researches in Pakistan. The significance of these trading outposts is that they provide undeniable evidence of the commercial and cultural contacts between Mesopotamia and the Indus basin at the height of their ancient civilizations in the Chal-colithic Age.

http://shahpurchakar.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/moen-jo-daro.pdf

Several coastal settlements like Sotkagen-dor (astride Dasht River, north of Jiwani), Sokhta Koh (astride Shadi River, north of Pasni), and Balakot (near Sonmiani) in Pakistan along with Lothal in India testify to their role as Harappan trading outposts

Indus Valley Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lot of links to "prove" IVC knew irrigation, nothing suggests south-north movement or they did not move eastwards. Even with the links, they do not talk about dams but channel irrigation. Just to rub it into you, Archeology supports the idea that IVC moved eastwards during their decline. Read "The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History" Page 4.

It is funny that suddenly you posted right wing website as "proof". Do you agree on everything they say?? but if you want scholarly opinion about Bharatavarsha and origin of term India/ Bharat, you might want to refer to "The Indian Empire: Its People, History, and Products" by sir William W. Hunter

For port cities, there was no material that suggested there was any "port" in those settlements. Try again please. If you post non-scholarly sources, it will be waste of time.

Meluhha to IVC is OK, but I said that meant Lothal but not Megargh.. where is the link that says what you said?

"In support of the Dravidian theory one usually pointed to the remnant North Dravidian Brahui language, spoken in Baluchistan;however, its presence has now been explained by a late immigration that took place within this millennium (Elfenbein 1987)" - This is from the first page of the Witzel article that you've quoted!

"The Brahuis are more likely to be relatively recent immigrants to their present homeland in Pakistan from the western Deccan. In perhaps the 7th century loose congeries of nomadic groups began to split off from their nearest neighbors, the northwest Kuṛukh and Malto Dravidians, and to migrate northwestward."- This is from the Brahui Encyclopaedia that you've cited.

Did you even bother to read them before posting or not?

I have read them, otherwise would not have posted. I am NOT saying they are IVC people. What I am saying is there is "possibility" that they are. The scholar world is not in full agreement with recent migration hypothesis (which was coined in 1924)...

 

[Indischer]

What has been found is more important than what hasn't been found yet. The fun part is today Hinduism holds both Vedic and non-Vedic characteristics. The IVC people may have worshipped Shiva, Shakti, Fire, Nature, Universal Consciousness or they have been Atheists these all have have made way to current day Hinduism. The culture and religion of something as vast as IVC couldn't just have vanished in thin air, so it's very likely to have merged with the current day Hinduism.

If the culture didn't vanish, perhaps their writing system too should also have survived. Their language too should have survived in the area. Why hasn't this happened?? If there is no trace of a culture in these aspects, how & why would their religion alone end up influencing the Vedic culture??

It's very likely that by the time the RigVedic tribes descended to Punjab, the great cities of IVC had already been abandoned and their people, likely Dravidians, had already dispersed into Central & southern India. Why is this scenario improbable??

The RigVedic tribes worshipped nature, they worshipped female deities, they worshipped fire, they rode chariots, sacrificed horses in ceremonies, they had knowledge of Bronze. They learnt these not in India, but before their migration. The sintashta culture on the Eurasian plains exhibits all these similarities with the rigVedic tribes and it's believed the RigVedic tribes were once part of this culture before their march southwards.

 

[Indischer]

I have read them, otherwise would not have posted. I am NOT saying they are IVC people. What I am saying is there is "possibility" that they are. The scholar world is not in full agreement with recent migration hypothesis (which was coined in 1924)...

Which "scholar" are you talking about?? Your own links (which are not from 1924, btw) state in no uncertain terms that the Brahui people are recent migrants(about a millennium ago) to Balochistan. It's through solid evidence after thorough analysis of their language, not just some off-the-cuff remark! You're trying to see doubt where none exist, yet you're ready to jump to conclusions where no proofs exist. Brilliant!

 

[Thirdfront]

Which "scholar" are you talking about?? Your own links (which are not from 1924, btw) state in no uncertain terms that the Brahui people are recent migrants(about a millennium ago) to Balochistan. It's through solid evidence after thorough analysis of their language, not just some off-the-cuff remark! You're trying to see doubt where none exist, yet you're ready to jump to conclusions where no proofs exist. Brilliant!

Do you understand the meaning of "hypothesis", "May", "Probably" etc? What was my conclusion by the way? That Brahui people "may" be IVC descendants? (Funnier thing is, that WAS the prevailing view until challenged mainly in 1987).

 

[Indischer]

Do you understand the meaning of "hypothesis", "May", "Probably" etc? What was my conclusion by the way? That Brahui people "may" be IVC descendants? (Funnier thing is, that WAS the prevailing view until challenged mainly in 1987).

So you somehow want to believe the theory that existed before 1987? It was also believed before that the Earth is flat. Now they say it's round. Should we be sceptical about that too?

what exactly do you find as the reason for your source of uncertainty over their status as recent migrants to the area?? Stating repeatedly that they 'may' be the descendents of IVC people with no back-up is plain dumb.

 

[Nassr]

Lot of links to "prove" IVC knew irrigation, nothing suggests south-north movement or they did not move eastwards. Even with the links, they do not talk about dams but channel irrigation. Just to rub it into you, Archeology supports the idea that IVC moved eastwards during their decline. Read "The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History" Page 4.

It is funny that suddenly you posted right wing website as "proof". Do you agree on everything they say?? but if you want scholarly opinion about Bharatavarsha and origin of term India/ Bharat, you might want to refer to "The Indian Empire: Its People, History, and Products" by sir William W. Hunter

For port cities, there was no material that suggested there was any "port" in those settlements. Try again please. If you post non-scholarly sources, it will be waste of time.

Meluhha to IVC is OK, but I said that meant Lothal but not Megargh.. where is the link that says what you said?

Mr. Linkman Seeker, at times please use your brain if you have one instead of merely seeking links.

Majority of the limited number of people who moved from their small settlements in the desert in south moved to locations within the IVC landmass. And they did not move due to the decrease in monsoons as the desert receives limited amount of rains during the monsoons in the first place. Movement of people did not need to take place from west to east due to decrease in monsoon, as alternative methods of irrigation were available and were being effectively used. Decrease of monsoons in Indian heartland creates drought like conditions due to lack of use of alternative irrigation methodology. And because it happens in Indian heartland, it would also have happened in Pakistan is merely based on presumptuous thinking and not facts. The reason of presenting links of alternative and varied irrigation methodology used by the people of IVC was to highlight the same.

The claims of IVC movement towards the Genges valley in my opinion are concocted by the Indians. Some movement may have taken place to Ganges valley much much later after the fading out of Indus Valley Civilization. And it was not due to lessening of monsoons.

Please do understand the context of The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History. The Aryans never invaded the IVC in the first place as a lot of available evidence confirms this fact, and neither migrated in large numbers within a short span of time to culturally effect the environment. Therefore, they would not have possibly pushed the IVC people from east to west into Ganges valley, due to their invasion or migration. These Aryans could have moved into the Ganges valley directly from Central Asia without settling inside the IVC or unsettling the people of IVC. The settlements could be Aryan settlements but not the IVC settlements.

I am not concerned with left or right wing leanings. I am concerned with the facts which I can confirm through varied sources. And I do not know which of my links you are referring to as a right wing web site. In any case, you are a proponent of Hindutva Brigade yourself – which is good enough to understand your leanings. It is laughable when you ask me to seek the meaning of Bharatversha from a western quote. William W. Hunter doesn’t identify India as Bharatversh – he further quotes from Indian references and quotes some Indians who identify their land as Bharatversh.

All the links about IVC ports identify these as coastal trading outposts, harbors or ports, including Lothal. Please open your eyes wide enough to read and understand what has been written in bold enough letters.

You said that location of Meluhha has not been identified as the IVC. I posted the link stating that it has been identified as such.

It is quite amazing as well as sad.

Negative identity where people just know what they are not, not knowing what they are...

That is the root cause of many of the troubles of the country.

This thread again shows how deep the problem really is. It is again about negative identity of denial, of claiming that they are not something.

Now knowing what they are...

That is not even an issue it seems!

Living example of physical flame-out being experienced.

Ye dhuan sa kahan se uthta hai

 

[Thirdfront]

Mr. Linkman Seeker, at times please use your brain if you have one instead of merely seeking links.

Majority of the limited number of people who moved from their small settlements in the desert in south moved to locations within the IVC landmass. And they did not move due to the decrease in monsoons as the desert receives limited amount of rains during the monsoons in the first place. Movement of people did not need to take place from west to east due to decrease in monsoon, as alternative methods of irrigation were available and were being effectively used. Decrease of monsoons in Indian heartland creates drought like conditions due to lack of use of alternative irrigation methodology. And because it happens in Indian heartland, it would also have happened in Pakistan is merely based on presumptuous thinking and not facts. The reason of presenting links of alternative and varied irrigation methodology used by the people of IVC was to highlight the same.

The claims of IVC movement towards the Genges valley in my opinion are concocted by the Indians. Some movement may have taken place to Ganges valley much much later after the fading out of Indus Valley Civilization. And it was not due to lessening of monsoons.

Please do understand the context of The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History. The Aryans never invaded the IVC in the first place as a lot of available evidence confirms this fact, and neither migrated in large numbers within a short span of time to culturally effect the environment. Therefore, they would not have possibly pushed the IVC people from east to west into Ganges valley, due to their invasion or migration. These Aryans could have moved into the Ganges valley directly from Central Asia without settling inside the IVC or unsettling the people of IVC. The settlements could be Aryan settlements but not the IVC settlements.

I am not concerned with left or right wing leanings. I am concerned with the facts which I can confirm through varied sources. And I do not know which of my links you are referring to as a right wing web site. In any case, you are a proponent of Hindutva Brigade yourself – which is good enough to understand your leanings. It is laughable when you ask me to seek the meaning of Bharatversha from a western quote. William W. Hunter doesn’t identify India as Bharatversh – he further quotes from Indian references and quotes some Indians who identify their land as Bharatversh.

All the links about IVC ports identify these as coastal trading outposts, harbors or ports, including Lothal. Please open your eyes wide enough to read and understand what has been written in bold enough letters.

You said that location of Meluhha has not been identified as the IVC. I posted the link stating that it has been identified as such.



Living example of physical flame-out being experienced.

Ye dhuan sa kahan se uthta hai

I seek link because you pull facts from thin air. And you make foolish statements like highlighted. Observations that IVC moved to Gangetic plains are crystal clear. Why they moved is the question archaeologist are trying to answer. 2 Major theories, one weakening of mansoon and second is aryan invasion.
I am neither hindutva brigade like you accuse me nor muslim apologist like you. I am only concerned about truth which only archaeologists are trying to uncover. Bharatavarsha was part of India and then came to indicate entire India (Bharat) but never was entire world. In any case, there was no mention of pakistan, not even remotely- that is what is clearly shown in the link. It might be western, but not propagandist like your reference was. You can keep your propaganda to yourself.

None of the links mention any archaeological evidence of port or harbor. That is what I am asking.

So you somehow want to believe the theory that existed before 1987? It was also believed before that the Earth is flat. Now they say it's round. Should we be sceptical about that too?

what exactly do you find as the reason for your source of uncertainty over their status as recent migrants to the area?? Stating repeatedly that they 'may' be the descendents of IVC people with no back-up is plain dumb.

Again, nobody "prooved" that they migrated just 1000 yrs ago. Loan words are Indication but are not conclusive. That is why it is still under consideration, even by the proponents. May be further studies will disprove either of the two are both of them and bring another hypothesis. What is dumb is to jumping into conclusion as you did before even the experts come to a common understanding. Just some time ago you were rolling out words like "experts disagree", "no conclusive evidence" etc and now it is complete reversal? Now that is completely idiotic.

 

[Indischer]

Again, nobody "prooved" that they migrated just 1000 yrs ago. Loan words are Indication but are not conclusive. That is why it is still under consideration, even by the proponents. May be further studies will disprove either of the two are both of them and bring another hypothesis. What is dumb is to jumping into conclusion as you did before even the experts come to a common understanding. Just some time ago you were rolling out words like "experts disagree", "no conclusive evidence" etc and now it is complete reversal? Now that is completely idiotic.

Since you weren't exactly understanding what it is to go by proof and what it is to jump into conclusions, I tried to make a few absolutist statements like you. Of course things like these cannot be proven like in Math, but we've to go by the strongest proof available. I hope that now you'll revisit all your previous posts here and see how many such absurd statements you've parroted here.

 

[Thirdfront]

Since you weren't exactly understanding what it is to go by proof and what it is to jump into conclusions, I tried to make a few absolutist statements like you. Of course things like these cannot be proven like in Math, but we've to go by the strongest proof available. I hope that now you'll revisit all your previous posts here and see how many such absurd statements you've parroted here.

I am perfectly aware of my previous posts. In both cases, I was claiming both theories are possible whenever 2 conflicting theories were present among scholars. It was you who was going with either of one theory, for reason only known to you.

 

[Indischer]

I am perfectly aware of my previous posts. In both cases, I was claiming both theories are possible whenever 2 conflicting theories were present among scholars. It was you who was going with either of one theory, for reason only known to you.

Conflicting theories are acceptable as long as conflicting proofs are also presented. Presenting a theory with no proofs/sham assumptions do not warrant plausibility.
It wasn't me who was going on and on about the contributions made by IVC to Hinduism when no proof was forthcoming. Was it me claiming the OM and Swastika are borrowed from IVC? Was it me arguing the Pashupati seal was indeed Shiva?
The arguments that IVC contributed OM or Shiva to Hinduism are part of the same realm of fringe theories as the KumariKandam or Homo Dravida hypothesis. As such, established facts cannot be questioned just because a theory came up.

 

[Nassr]

I seek link because you pull facts from thin air. And you make foolish statements like highlighted. Observations that IVC moved to Gangetic plains are crystal clear. Why they moved is the question archaeologist are trying to answer. 2 Major theories, one weakening of mansoon and second is aryan invasion.
I am neither hindutva brigade like you accuse me nor muslim apologist like you. I am only concerned about truth which only archaeologists are trying to uncover. Bharatavarsha was part of India and then came to indicate entire India (Bharat) but never was entire world. In any case, there was no mention of pakistan, not even remotely- that is what is clearly shown in the link. It might be western, but not propagandist like your reference was. You can keep your propaganda to yourself.

None of the links mention any archaeological evidence of port or harbor. That is what I am asking

Could you also please name some of the IVC sites that you claim have been found in Ganges valley and its adjoining plains with references.

The theories about Aryan invasion and monsoon are both discredited and I gave enough reasons. If you do not understand logic, it is not my problem.

I am neither a religious apologist, nor a cultural one and I have posted logical aspects to counter many a times even your frivolous posts and claims. You do not like to understand and express logic through seeking links to what others have written.

When you seek link and is presented with one, you decline to accept it if it goes against your pre-ordained beliefs and you do it without logical response.

All the links mentioned archeological discoveries, including Lothal.

Even for a light hearted comment, you asked for a link of Bharatvarsha defined as world. Most of the time you are off your rocker and acts like a nut.

 

[Thirdfront]

Conflicting theories are acceptable as long as conflicting proofs are also presented. Presenting a theory with no proofs/sham assumptions do not warrant plausibility.
It wasn't me who was going on and on about the contributions made by IVC to Hinduism when no proof was forthcoming. Was it me claiming the OM and Swastika are borrowed from IVC? Was it me arguing the Pashupati seal was indeed Shiva?
The arguments that IVC contributed OM or Shiva to Hinduism are part of the same realm of fringe theories as the KumariKandam or Homo Dravida hypothesis. As such, established facts cannot be questioned just because a theory came up.

You are coming again for the proof. Make up your mind on what constitutes a proof. I have told you earlier, you are not going to find a inscription from IVC people saying Shiva was borrowed by Rigvedic people. At one hand, you show the "proof" of Brahui migration based on loan words that are present but you refuse to accept loan gods as proof of IVC contribution. If Rigvedic people can spontaneously come up with non-IE gods, Brahui can come up with IE words themselves. Go through some of the published works, you will get most detailed answers regarding IVC remnants in Rigveda. Even linguistically, there are about 300 "loan words" in rigveda that are non IE. These same words are in use among today's dravidian people. That is a fact. This is what has prompted many people to believe IVC spoke some proto dravidian language. You call dravidian origin of Shiva a fringe theory? Asko Parpola is a "fringe theorist" to you?
Read his paper published in 2010, page 21 "http://w.harappa.com/script/Parpola-2010-Coimbatore.pdf"
Like I said, there are tons of tell tale signs. You consider things that suit you as proof and others as "fringe theory" etc. Also, I did not say Pasupati is Shiva, I added "most probably".