• Before the advent of Islam, the majority of people in the region of Pakistan practised Buddhism, Zoroastrianism (and its derivatives like Mithraism, Saurism, Manichaeism, etc.), Animism (nature worship), Paganism (Hellenic and other deities), and Shamanism. Harappans ate beef, buried their dead, had no Hindu temples/idols/deities, etc. RigVedic Aryans forbade idolatry, ate beef, sacrificed cows, had no caste system, were culturally closer to ancient Iranians, etc. Under Persian rule, Zoroastrianism started to spread. Similarly, Greek Paganism (Hellenism) spread under the Greeks. Ashoka brought Buddhism, which was later also propagated along with Zoroastrianism, Animism, Shamanism, Hellenism, etc.under the Bactrians, Sakas/Scythians, Parthians, and Kushans for many centuries. Hephthalites/White Huns were not very fond of Buddhism, but it still remained popular among the masses. Brahmanists and Shaivites were a minority in Pakistan. Kafirs of Kalasha, the only people in Pakistan who have retained their ancient religion are an example of the non-Hindu religions practised by the ancestors of Pakistanis. Gangetic holy Hindu texts call Pakistan region as outlandish, sinful, outcaste, mlechas, etc.The pre-Muslim ancestors of most Pakistanis never called themselves Hindu nor practised any religion similar to present-day Hinduism.Thus, the pre-Muslim ancestors of most Pakistanis had nothing to do with Hinduism.
• The word/term “Hindu/Hinduism” is a recent construct. It were the Muslim invaders who for the first time in history imposed the foreign term “Hindu” in South Asia to the countless distinct local religions. The term “Hinduism” was given by the British colonialists. Not a single pre-Muslim/British era Brahman, Buddhist, Jain, or any other South Asian scripture/inscription mentions the word “Hindu/Hinduism”. Similarly, “Sanata Dharma” was a term invented in the 19th century AD by Brahmanist scholars in their desperate attempt to replace the Muslim/British term “Hindu/Hinduism”. Such terms are artificial in nature because of its origins and meanings. Just because we call all Europeans or their descendents as “Goras” it does not make them one people as they have many racial, religious, linguistic, cultural, and historical differences. By the same token, if the Ghorid Muslim invaders imposed the foreign word/term “Hindu” on the non-Muslim peoples of south Asia it does not mean that they were one people since there were/are countless different religions, cultures, histories, languages, and races in south Asia. Besides, by the time of Ghorid invasions (12th century AD), Pakistan region was already mostly Muslim. Most of Pakistan region was a part of Arab empires previously and Arabs called them as Sindhis. So the Ghorid imposition of the artificial term Hindu was mostly for present day north India for their ruled non-Muslim subjects. The bottomline is Pakistanis were not Hindus because they never called themselves Hindu nor practised Hinduism.
• A significant minority of Pakistanis are descendents of Arab, Iranian, Turkic, Mughal and Afghan invaders/migrants, who just like the rest of the ancestors of Pakistanis were Zoroastrians, Animists, Pagans, Shamanists, and Buddhists before Islam. It was mostly due to Islamic Sufism that the ancestors of Pakistanis converted en masse to Islam.
Pakistan from 3000 BC to the present:
-
Indus Valley Civilization: 3000-1500 B.C. i.e. about 1500 yrs. Independent, separate from India.
-
Aryan period: 1500-522 B.C. i.e. about 978 yrs. Independent, separate from India.
-
Small semi-independent states: 522-326 B.C. i.e. about 196 yrs. Under the suzerainty of Iran’s Kayani (Achaemenian) Empire.
-
Conquered by Alexander and remained under his successor: 326-300 B.C. i.e. about 26 yrs. Under Greek rulers, not part of India.
-
Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule.
-
Graeco-Bactrian period: 200-100 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Independent, not part of India.
-
Saka-Parthian period: 100 B.C.- 70 A.D. i.e. about 170 yrs. Independent, separate from India.
-
Kushan rule (1st phase): 70-250 A.D. i.e. about 180 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdom ruled over major portion of north India.
-
Kushan rule (2nd phase): 250-450 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Independent, separate from India.
-
White Huns and allied tribes (1st phase): 450-650 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdoms ruled over parts of north India.
-
White Huns (2nd phase— mixed with other races): 650-1010 A.D. i.e. about 360 yrs. Independent Rajput-Brahmin Kingdoms, not part of India.
-
Ghaznavids: 1010-1187 A.D. i.e. 177 yrs. Part of Ghaznavid empire, separate from India.
-
Ghorid and Qubacha periods: 1187-1227 A.D. i.e. about 40 yrs. Independent, not part of India.
-
Muslim period (Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Syeds, Lodhis, Suris and Mughals): 1227-1739 A.D. i.e. about 512 yrs. Under north India based MUSLIM govts.
-
Nadir Shah and Abdali periods: 1739-1800 A.D. i.e. about 61 yrs. Iranian and Afghan suzerainty, not part of India.
-
Sikh rule (in Punjab, NWFP and Kashmir), Talpur rule in Sind, Khanate of Kalat in Baluchistan: 1800-1848 A.D. i.e. about 48 yrs. Independent states, not part of India.
-
British rule: 1848-1947 A.D. i.e. about 99 yrs (1843-1947 in Sind). Part of India under FOREIGN rule.
-
Muslim rule under the nomenclature of Pakistan: 1947-present. Independent, not part of India.
The above table reveals that during the 5000 years of Pakistan’s known history, this country was part of India for a total period of 711 yrs of which 512 yrs were covered by the MUSLIM period and about 100 years each by the Mauryan (mostly BUDDHIST) and British (CHRISTIAN) periods. Can anybody agree with the Indian ‘claim’ that Pakistan was part of India and that partition was unnatural? It hardly needs much intelligence to understand that Pakistan always had her back towards India and face towards the countries on her west. This is true both commercially and culturally.
More on the land/people of Pakistan’s distinct past: http://www.geocities.com/pak_history
The Myth of Bharat
by Subbiah Alagumalaiyan
In modern times, bigoted Brahmins have projected Bharatavarsha as the
ancient Sanskrit name for the whole of India. This, however, has no
historical foundation. Bharatavarsha did not include the whole of
India and never did, but only denoted the kingdom of the Aryan invader
Bharata, who was a chieftain of one of the Aryan tribes that invaded
India. This small region comprised only a small part of the upper
Ganges valley.
Epigraphic Evidence
The epigraphic evidence confirms that Bharata originally did not mean
the whole of India. but only a small part of North India. Kharavela
who lived c.63 BC - c.23 BC ( C.R.Mishra, p.114 ), was one of the most
famous kings of the Kolarian-Dravidian kingdom of Kalinga. His
conquests ranged far and wide. They are celebrated in the Hathigumpha
inscription. The nineth and tenth lines of this inscription clearly
mention that he invaded Bharata from Kalingam thereby implying that
Bharata at that time did not include the whole of India -
Line 9-10 : “And, in the nineth year, (His Majesty) Kharavela ]
caused to be built the great victory place - royal residence at the
cost of thirty eight hundred thousand (coins).
" Then, in the 10th year (His Majesty) who embodied the principles of
politics, diplomacy and peace, caused (the army) to march towards
Bharatavarsha for conquest .”
– ( C.R.Mishra, p.128 )
Prof. C.R.Mishra notes that Bharata did not originally denote
India : " Bharatavarsha, here is used in a general sense denoting the
regions of northern India " (C.R.Mishra, p.121). Elaborating this, he
states that Bharata is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha
inscription and that it denoted only a part of North India -
" In the epigraphic records of ancient India, the name `Bharatavarsha’
is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha inscription. But the
name denoted North India at that time."
– ( C.R.Mishra, p.130, n.79 )
A.L. Basham states that Bharatas was one of the invading Aryan tribes
which settled in the region between the Satlaj and Jamna, which later
became known as Brahmavarta (Basham, The Wonder that was India, p.30).
Thus, the first time that we have undisputed usage of the word
Bharatavarsha, it denoted only North India. There is no evidence of
Bharata’s kingdom extending beyond Northern India.
Historical Evidence
Historical evidence refutes the Brahmanist claim that Bharata
conquered the whole of India. Bharata’s ancestors lived in the region
of the Caspian sea in Central Asia; they were nomadic tribesmen of
Aryan stock. Bharata’s legendary capital lay in the Kabul valley, ie.
Yusufzai territory of modern Afghanistan:
" According to local tradition, the original seat of the empire of
Bharata was much further to the morth-west, namely, at the site now
occupied by the ruins of Takh-i-Bahi, in the country of the Yusufzais
to the northward of Peshawur."
– ( Wheeler, p.48n.2 )
From this base he descended with his hordes of Aryan horsemen
onto the plains of India. There he defeated Indra ( Wheeler, p.45 ),
a descendant of the first Aryan invader Indra, earning himself the title
“most renowned of the Lunar race” ( Wheller, p.47 ). He then conquered
the Upper Ganges valley, exceeding Indra’s dominion.
After the wars of annexation, the Raj of Bharata extended over the
enitre doab between the rivers Ganges and the Jumna right up to the
junction of these 2 rivers ( Wheeler, p.44 ). It is thus obvious that
Bharata’s empire, Bharatavarsha, only included a few provinces in the
Ganges Valley.
His son Hastin founded Hastinapur further down the Ganges valley,
after this second wave of Aryans had pushed on from the neighbourhood
of Peshawar up to the banks of the Ganges ( Wheeler, p.48.n2 ). It is
thus evident that even the lower Ganges valley was beyond Bharata’s
control. Hence, the Brahminist concept of One Ancient Bharata' under perpetual dominion of the Brahmin Aryans is a fallacy. In the words of Winston Churchill, India is as much a nation as the equator’ .
References
( C.R.Mishra ), Kharavela and His Times' , in Comprehensive Hisotry
and Culture of Orissa’ , ed. P.K.Mishra, Kaveri Books, New Delhi 1997,
Vol.I part I, p.108-131.
( J. T. Wheeler ), India of the Vedic Age with Reference to the Mahabharata', J. Talboys Wheeler, Vol. I of The History of India’,
1973 reprint Cosmo Publns. Delhi 1973