Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??
Among the ancient scriptures/texts that Hindus today consider "holy" only the Rig Veda has the exclusive association with Pakistan region. All of their other holy Hindu scriptures/texts have nothing to do with Pakistan region and are based in India (particularly Gangetic Valley).
The fact is majority of the ancestors of Pakistanis were never Hindu:
[quote]
- 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, and had no Hindu temples/idols/deities.
RigVedic Aryans forbade idolatry, ate beef, sacrificed cows, had no caste system, and were culturally closer to ancient
Avestan Iranians.
Under Persian rule, Zoroastrianism started to spread.
Similarly, Greek Paganism (Hellenism) spread under the Greeks.
Mauryan Ashoka introduced Buddhism.
Buddhism was later also propagated along with Zoroastrianism, Animism, Shamanism, and Hellenism 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.
The Hellenized-Iranianized Brahmanist and Shaivite converts 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.
Many different Gangetic holy Hindu texts call Pakistan region and its people 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 fact is there is barely any trace of Hindu past in Pakistan region yet there are plentiful of Buddhist and other non-Hindu archeological remains in Pakistan region. The very few Hindu temples found in Pakistan region cannot be dated past the 9th century AD.
When Muslims invaded Pakistan region the majority of its people were Buddhists (as testified in Chachnama), so much so that the word for idol became "budh".
The word/term Hindu/Hinduism is a recent construct. It were the Muslim invaders (Ghorids) who for the first time in history imposed the foreign term Hindu on the many different peoples and religions of south Asia. The term Hinduism was given by the British colonialists. Not a single pre-Muslim/British era Vedic, 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 Gangetic Brahmans in their desperate attempt to replace the Muslim/British term Hindu/Hinduism.
Terms such as Hindu/Hinduism/SanataDharma are artificial in nature because of its foreign origins and contradictions in its beliefs/practices. 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.
Also, 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 (later also ruled by local Muslim kingdoms). Arabs never called them Hindus. So the Ghorid imposition of the artificial term Hindu was mostly for present day north India for their ruled non-Muslim subjects.
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.
Pre-1947 region of present-day Pakistan only had less than 15% non-Muslims, out of which half were Sikhs. Many of the Hindus were actual migrants from the region of present day India during the British rule. For example, most of the Hindus in pre-1947 Karachi had migrated from Gujarat and Rajasthan during British rule because of Karachi's economic boom then. The other remaining Hindus of local origin were converts due to Shankarcharya's missionaries from India region during post- 9th century AD period.
[/quote]
Proof that Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans were not Hindu:
[quote]
There has been a strong campaign by Hindu fundamentalists and Indian nationalists in trying to make wild hegemonic claims on ancient peoples who have very little to do with them. Unfortunately, a few respected scholars have also been manipulated into promoting their agendas and vested interests. This article in particular covers the ancient peoples of Indus Valley (Pakistan) called Harappans and Rigvedic Aryans (who were the ancestors of most Pakistanis) with facts that prove they were not Hindu debunking those Hindu/Indian claims. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans were Hindu.
Harappans:
Not a single Hindu idol/deity/temple has been excavated at Indus sites. Plus evidence shows that Harappans ate beef and buried their dead. This is what the renowned historian John Keays states on the religion of Harappans:
"The religion of Harappans is unknown. No site has certainly been identified as a temple and most suppositions about sacrificial fires, cult objects and deities rest on doubtful retrospective references from Hindu practices of many centuries later. Such inferences may be as futile as, say, looking to Islamic astronomy for an explanation of the orientation of the pyramids. In short, these theories are all fanciful and do not bear scrutiny.
"Depicted on some Harappan seals, is that of a big-nosed gentleman wearing a horned head-dress who sits in the lotus position, an air of abstraction and an audience of animals. He cannot be the early manifestation of Lord Shiva as Pashupati, `Lord of the Beasts.' Myth, as has been noted, is subject to frequent revision. The chances of a deity remaining closely associated with the specific powers - in this case, fertility, asceticism, and familiarity with the animal kingdom - for all of two thousand years must raise serious doubts, especially since, during the interval, there is little evidence for the currency of this myth. Rudra, a Vedic deity later identified with Shiva, is indeed referred to as Pasupati because of his association with the cattle, but asceticism and meditation were not Rudra's specialties nor is he usually credited with an empathy for animals other than kine. More plausibly, it has been suggested that the Harappan figure's heavily horned headgear bespeaks a bull cult, to which numerous other representations of bulls lend substance.
"Similar doubts surround the female terracotta figurines which are often described as mother goddesses. Pop-eyed, bat-eared, belted and sometime miniskirted, they are usually of crude workmanship and grotesque mien. Only a dusty-eyed archaeologist could describe them as `pleasing little things.' The bat-ears, on closer inspection, appear to be elaborate head dresses or hairstyles. If, as the prominent and clumsily applied breasts suggest, they were fertility symbols, why bother with millinery? Or indeed miniskirts?"
The Harappan seals depicting the sitting man/deity wearing horned headdress (which Hindus claim as so called Shiva) is as follows:
Similar to this horned Harappan man/deity is the horned Celtic Cernunnos that was worshipped in parts of ancient Europe:
On the other hand, Hinduism's Shiva looks totally different:
So obviously Harappans did not worship Shiva, not even close! With Hindu hegemonic claims would ancient Europeans also be considered Hindu since the Celtic Cerrunos looks very similar to the horned Harappan deity? By the way, it is the cow that's worshipped in Hinduism whereas bull has a minor role. Bull was much more sacred in ancient Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures similar to the popular Harappan bull.
This is further supported by Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"The Bull Cult was a prehistoric religious practice that originated in the eastern Aegean Sea and extended from the Indus Valley of Pakistan to the Danube River in eastern Europe .... The Bull Cult continued into historic times and was particularly important in the Indus Valley and on the Grecian island of Crete. In both places the bull's 'horns of consecration' were an important religious symbol."
On the non-Hindu beliefs/customs of Harappans, Richard K. Hines states:
"Similar to the cultures of ancient Middle East, it appears that the Indus religion recognized some type of life after death. Unlike Hindus who practice cremation, Indus people carefully buried their dead in wooded coffins with their heads facing north and the feet pointing south. Included in the graves were pottery jars containing food and weapons for use in the afterlife."
And on beef as a common aspect of Harappan diet, Dr. Kamal Lodaya states:
"Meat was an important part of Harappan diet which included beef, mutton, fowl, fish, and other animals."
Rig Vedic Aryans:
Now coming to the Aryans.. The concept of Aryan Race is nonsense invented by the Nazis. But what is historically correct is that Aryans were an ancient people who originally inhabited Central Asia and later migrated southwards to the regions stretching from Iran to northwest India. These early Aryans had a similar language, race, culture, and religion with many variations. The Aryans of Iran were later influenced by the Elamites and Babylonians. The Aryans of Pakistan were later influenced by the Harappans. The Aryans of north India were later influenced by the Dravidic-Mundic natives giving birth to Hinduism. Of course in later centuries other peoples also invaded/migrated bringing other influences/mixing.
The Aryans associated with the Rig Veda and Sapta Sindhu (i.e. today's Pakistan region) were definitely not Hindu because they did not follow the Hindu caste system, they ate beef, sacrificed cows, culturally were closer to Avestan Iranians, forbade idolatry, etc. Also, not a single Hindu idol/temple has been excavated from the Rig Vedic Aryan period.
Here are some excerpts that support my views:
“The evidence of the Rig Veda shows that during the centuries when the Aryans were occupying the Punjab and composing the hymns of the Rig Veda, the north-west part of the subcontinent was culturally separate from the rest of India. The closest cultural relations of the Indo-Aryans at that period were with the Iranians, whose language and sacred texts are preserved in the various works known as the Avesta, in inscriptions in Old Persian, and in some other scattered documents. So great is the amount of material common to the Rig Veda Aryans and the Iranians that the books of the two peoples show common geographic names as well as deities and ideas”. (Pakistan and Western Asia, By Prof. Norman Brown)
According to A. L. Stravrianos on the non-Hindu nature of Rig Vedic Aryans:
"The word Veda means knowledge. There were originally four Vedas, but the most important is the Rigveda, which is also the oldest. The Rigveda is a primary source for study of the early Aryans; it is in essence a collection of 1028 hymns arranged in ten books. Per the Vedas, Aryans worshiped elements of nature in personified forms, and idolatry was forbidden.
"In Rig Veda, the gods of Dyaus is the same as the Greek Zeus (Roman Jupiter), Mitra is the same as the Graeco-Roman Mithras, Ushas is the same as the Greek Eos (Roman Aurora), and
Agni is the same as the Graeco-Roman Ignis.
"The image of the Aryans that emerges from Vedic literature is that of a virile people, fond of war, drinking, chariot racing, and gambling. Their god of war, Indra, was an ideal Aryan warrior: ‘he dashed into battle joyously, wore golden armor, and was able to consume the flesh of three hundred buffaloes and drink three lakes of liquor at one time’.
"When they first arrived in the South Asia the Aryans were primarily pastoralists. Their economic life centered around their cattle and wealth was judged on the basis of the size of herds. As the newcomers settled in fertile river valleys, they gradually shifted more to agriculture. They lived in villages consisting of a number of related families. Several villages comprised a clan, and several clans a tribe, at the head of which was the king. The king’s authority depended on his personal prowess and initiative, and was limited by the council of nobles, and in some tribes by the freemen.
"The outstanding characteristics of this early Aryan society was its basic difference from the later Hinduism. Cows were not worshipped but eaten. Intoxicating spirits were not forsaken but joyously consumed. There were classes but no castes, and the priests were subordinate to the nobles rather than at the top of the social pyramid. In short, Aryan society resembled much more the contemporary Indo-European societies than it did Hinduism that was to develop in later centuries in the Gangetic Valley."
Further supports how a few Aryans who later migrated eastward towards India slowly became Hindu because of Dravidic-Mundic influences:
"The castes were hardened by the time the Aryans occupied the middle land i.e., the Gangetic Valley and distinguished themselves from their brethern in Sind and the Punjab who were despised by them for not observing the rules of caste .... and for their non-Brahmanical character.” (Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakur)
“While some Aryans had by now expanded far into India, their old home in the Punjab, Sind and the north-west was practically forgotten. Later Vedic literature mentions it rarely, and then usually with disparagement and contempt, as an impure land where sacrifices are not performed.” (The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham)
This is further supported by Dr. Gurupdesh Singh:
"From geographical information in the RigVeda, the Vedic Period (1500-500 BC) was confined to the northwest. The hymns composed by Vedic mystics/poets of the northwest (Saptha Sindhva) tell that the Vedic peoples worshipped non-Brahmanical Gods (Indra, Varuna, Mitra), ate cows, elected their chiefs, drank liqor, considered the Punjab rivers to be sacred, and refer to people living to the south in the gangetic region as 'Dasyas'! None of the gangetic Brahmanical gods (e.g Ram, Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma, etc.) are mentioned in RigVeda hyms nor do they appear in connected Aryan Avestan texts and Hittite tablets. Avestan terms for soldiers ('rathaestar') and citizens ('vastriyo') are similar to Vedic-derived terms (kshatriyas, vasihyas) but the Avestan term for priest ('athravan') is not even close to 'Brahmanas'. Moreover, central Gangetic religious texts like the Mahabharta and VarnaAshramDharma of Manu call the Vedic Aryans in Saptha Sindhva 'mlechas', 'sudras' and 'vratyas'; 'forbid Brahmins' from even visiting the northwest country ('Vahika-desa'); and depict dark Dravidian Gods like Krishna fighting and defeating Vedic Aryan gods like Indra (Mahabharta). Similarly, the RigVeda contains taboos and injunctions against the 'dasya-varta' region to the south of Saptha Sindhva and praises Indra (god of thunderbolt) for victories over 'dasya-purahs' (dasya cities).
"Both early RigVedic and gangetic Puranic sources clearly point to ethnic, cultural and religious differences and a 'clash of civilizations and nations' at the ganga indicating that the Vedic people and culture of the northwest did not accept the gangetic priests, their gods, shastras, religion, culture and Brahmanical caste ideology. The eastern gangetic heartland is not only historically a separate region, but geographically resides over 1500 miles to the southeast of the Saptha Sindhva country. Uptil the advent of Mohammed Ghori in the 13th century, the northwest was politically unified with southasia only 92 years under the Mauryas (out of 27 centuries) since the start of Saptha Sindhva’s Vedic period (1500 BC).
"A few Vedic tribes from Saptha Sindhva broke RigVedic norms and migrated southward. These numerically outnumbered groups expanding into the trans-gangetic region near the end of the Vedic period (8-6th century BC) tried to use the indigenous Dravidian priesthood to entrench themselves as the new ruling order. Within a few generations of acquiring control over the foreign Gangasthan, the minority Vedic tribes were usurped by the indigenous 'borrowed' priesthood; their Aryan religion, gods and customs mostly deposed and supplanted with indigenous gangetic gods and mythologies; and their new social order (varna or color based) replaced with the pre-existing profession (jati) based Brahmanical caste system ('chatur-varna' ). Through religious manipulation and intrigue, the Vedic in-comers to Gangasthan were usurped and made to surrender their political rule and soon pigeon-holed into becoming the loyal obedient chownkidars of their 'superior' dravidic Brahmanas."
Now coming to idolatry which is an integral part of Hinduism, there are clear evidences of early Aryans rejecting it :
“They are enveloped in darkness, in other words, are steeped in ignorance and sunk in the greatest depths of misery who worship the uncreated, eternal prakrti—the material cause of the world—in place of the All-pervading God, but those who worship visible things born of the Prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time.”—Yajur Veda 40:9.
“The Formless Supreme Spirit that pervades the universe can have no material representation, likeness or image.”—Yajur Veda 32:3.
Also, early Aryans had a Monist belief of worshipping elements of nature (in non-idolatrous personified forms): “There is only one God, worship Him” (Rig Veda, Vol. 6, Hymn 45 vs 16 ) and “Do not worship any one beside Him” (Rig Veda Bk. 8, Hymn 1, Vs 1)
Then there are clear evidences in the Rig Veda that Aryans regularly ate beef and sacrificed cows for religious purposes which are strictly forbidden in Hinduism:
Hymn CLXIX of the Rig Veda says: "May the wind blow upon our cows with healing; may they eat herbage ... Like-colored various-hued or single- colored whose names through sacrifice are known to Agni, Whom the Angirases produced by Ferbvour - vouschsafe to these, Parjanya, great protection. Those who have offered to the gods their bodies whose varied forms are all well known to Soma" [The Rig Veda (RV), translated by Ralph H. Griffith, New York, 1992, p. 647]. In the Rig Veda (RV: VIII.43.11) Agni is described as "fed on ox and cow" suggesting that cattle were sacrificed and roasted in fire.
Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered”, and Rigveda (6/17/1) states that “Indra used to eat the meat of cow, calf, horse and buffalo.”
Quoting from Rigveda, historian H. H Wilson writes, “the sacrifice and consumption of horse and cow appears to have been common in the early periods of the Aryan culture.”
Conclusion:
Finally, to claim that Hinduism has been evolving is simply a very weak argument. Every religion is identified with a set of beliefs and customs making it distinct and recognizable from others, including Hinduism. Any people and religion can claim of their beliefs and customs evolving, but when a change occurs it represents a new identity. For example, Catholic Christianity is not the same religion as ancient Roman Paganism. Therefore, since Harappan and Rig Vedic Aryan religions were very different from Hinduism's beliefs and customs, they cannot be Hindu. Additionally, Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans of Indus/Pakistan region were geographically a distinct people having no association with Gangetic Valley and the rest of most India where Hinduism was born in later centuries, nor did they call themselves Hindu.
In conclusion, all the evidence proves that Harappans and early Aryans were not Hindu. The hegemonic and imperialistic Hindu fanatic and Indian nationalist claims on them are simply false propaganda based on myths and distorted history.
[/quote]
