Facts about the pre-Muslim ancestors of Pakistanis:
-
The word/term “Hindu/Hinduism” is a recent construct. It were the
Muslim invaders who for the first time in history imposed this foreign
term in South Asia to the countless distinct local religions. Not a
single pre-Muslim era Brahman, Buddhist, Jain, or any other South
Asian scripture/inscription mentions the word “Hindu/Hinduism”. -
Before the advent of Islam, the majority of people in the region of
Pakistan were Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and Animists/Pagans/Shamanists.
Brahmanists/Shaivites were a minority in Pakistan. Harappans ate beef,
buried the dead, had no Hindu temples/idols/deities, etc. RigVedic
Aryans forbade idolatory, ate beef, sacrificed cows, had no caste
system, most Hindu deities were absent among them, etc. Under Persian
rule, Zoroastrianism started to spread. Similarly, Greek Paganism
spread under the Greeks. Asoka brought Buddhism, which was later also
propagated along with Zoroastrianism and Animism/Shamanism/Paganism
under the Bactrians, Sakas, Parthians, and Kushans. White Huns
(Iranian Huns/Hepthalites) were not very fond of Buddhism. -
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. -
Pre-1947 region of present-day Pakistan only had 15% non-Muslims,
out of which half were Sikhs. Many of remaining half that were 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/Rajasthan during British rule because of
Karachi’s economic boom then.
On the pre-1947 non-Muslim population in present day region of
Pakistan:
- W. Punjab: 9% Hindu, 11% Sikh
- Sindh: 10% Hindu, 5% Sikh
- NWFP: 2.5% Hindu, 2.5% Sikh
- Baluchistan: 3% Hindu
Other Sources:
According to the UN and other respected organizations, 12-24 million
is the total estimate of migrations from both India and Pakistan
(East Pakistan included) of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs combined at the
time of partition!!! So if Hindus and Sikhs are taken as 50% of that
figure, since there was an almost equal exchange of population, that
would make about 6-12 million Hindus-Sikhs in both East and West
Pakistan that migrated to India. Now, we know that there was almost
an equal (50% each) number of migrants leaving East and West Pakistan
(although Hindu population in East Pakistan was higher), that would
make the Hindu-Sikh population in West Pakistan about 3-6 million.
Now we know that West Pakistan’s population at that time was about 25-
30 million which makes the total Hindu-Sikh population about 12-20%
(+ add the current 1.5%) in West Pakistan before partition. Also, it
is estimated that out of the non-Muslim population in West Pakistan,
+40% were Sikhs, so that leaves Hindus with even lesser numbers. We
know that Sikhs do not consider themselves as Hindus and they are
fighting for independence from India.
References:
Check your local library on the UN statistics on the country’s
history of population demography, it will also confirm this. Other
sources such as the World Almanac clearly states: “More than 12
MILLION Hindu & Moslem refugees crossed the India-Pakistan borders in
a mass transferral of some of the 2 peoples during 1947; about
200,000 were killed in communal fighting”. Also the Library of
Congress states: “The most conservative estimates of the casualties
were 250,000 dead and 12 MILLION to 24 MILLION refugees”.
On the meaning and origins of Hinduism:
"The term Hinduism … was ] introduced in about 1830 AD by
British writers. " [Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 `Hinduism’ 519 ]
“The term Hindu was first imposed on south Asian nations by the
Afghan dynasty of Ghori in the 12th century; this term was never
used in south Asia prior to the Muslim era and is not even found in
early (pre-12th century AD) Brahmanical or Buddhist texts. Such a
term and concept has no historical depth in any social, religious,
ethnic or national sense past the 12th century when Mohammed Ghori
for the first time named his conquered subjects Hindus.” [G. Singh,
Sakasthan and India, Toronto, 1999, p. 20]
“Hinduism, as a faith, is vague, amorphous, many-sided, all things
to all men. It is hardly possible to define it, or indeed to say
definitely whether it is a religion or not, in the usual sense of
the word.” [Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, New Delhi,
1983, p.75]
“Frankly speaking, it is not possible to say definitely who is a
Hindu and what Hinduism is. These questions have been considered
again and again by eminent scholars, and so far no satisfactory
answer has been given.” [Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu
Imperialism, Madras, 1992, p. 178]
“Hinduism defies definition… It has no specific creed.” [Khushwant
Singh, India: An Introduction, New Delhi, 1990, p. 19]
“The more Hinduism is considered, the more difficult it becomes to
define it in a single phrase… A Hindu may have any religious
belief or none.” [Percival Spear, India: A Modern History, Michigan,
1961, p.40]
"The term Hinduism … was ] introduced in about 1830 AD by
British writers. " [Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 `Hinduism’ 519 ]
“The term Hindu was first imposed on south Asian nations by the
Afghan dynasty of Ghori in the 12th century; this term was never
used in south Asia prior to the Muslim era and is not even found in
early (pre-12th century AD) Brahmanical or Buddhist texts. Such a
term and concept has no historical depth in any social, religious,
ethnic or national sense past the 12th century when Mohammed Ghori
for the first time named his conquered subjects Hindus.” [G. Singh,
Sakasthan and India, Toronto, 1999, p. 20]
