Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
peace, non-violence, strength, tolerance are all in Islam!!!
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
FACTS ON THE PRE-MUSLIM ANCESTORS OF PAKISTANIS, AND THE PRE-1947 NON-MUSLIM POPULATION:
-
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.
-
The pre-1947 non-Muslim population in present day region of Pakistan had: 6% Hindu and 10% Sikh in W. Punjab, 9% Hindu and 2% Sikh in Sindh, 1% Hindu and 2% Sikh in NWFP, and 2% Hindu in Baluchistan.
-
According to the UN and other respected organizations, 12 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 (although there were much more migrations of Hindus/Sikhs than Muslims) of population, that would make about 6 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 much higher), that would make the Hindu-Sikh population in West Pakistan about 3 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 10-12% (+ 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.
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans were NOT Hindu !
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.
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
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.
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
Indian hijacking of Pakistan's history
Although both India and Pakistan were created at the same time out
of British Raj, Indians desperately try to steal Pakistan's heritage,
particularly the Indus Valley Civilization! This Indian hegemonic
agenda is based on myths and false propaganda for religious and
nationalistic imperialism. Also, there are some Pakistanis,
particularly Islamists, who narrow-mindedly deny/ignore Pakistan's
glorious pre-Islamic past. Harappans were certainly the ancestors of
most Pakistanis, who absorbed or adopted the many waves of
invaders/migrants through out the centuries.
Indus Valley Civilization was mostly based in the region of Pakistan.
The names used for the Civilization are "Indus Valley" or "Harappan",
both in Pakistan. The most largest and important cities are Harappa
and Mohenjodaro, both in Pakistan. Even in the case of Hakra/Ghaggar
river (extinct), a tributary of Indus itself, it has far more mature
Harappan sites on the Pakistani side than on the Indian side. The
proto-Indus site is also located at Mehrgarh in Pakistan. Indus Valley
Civilization, at its peak, had colonies stretching from Turkmenistan
to northern Maharashta, and from southeast Iran to western UP. About
85% of Indians (i.e. outside of northwest India) have nothing to do
with Indus Valley Civilization, where their ancestors were nomadic
forest-dwelling hunters and gatherers at a time period when the
sophisticated Indus Valley Civilization was flourishing.
Indus/Harappan religion was not Hinduism. Not a single Hindu temple,
idol, or statue has been found at excavated Indus sites. Harappans
buried their dead, ate beef, and were not Vedic.The "Great Bath"
was common in many civilizations such as among the Graeco-Romans
and Mesopotamians. Depicted on some Indus seals, the "deity" wearing
the horned head-dress looks nothing like Hinduism's Shiva,
and similar deities were common in other civilizations like the
Celtic "Cernunnos". Bull seemed to be sacred among Harappans similar
to Mesopotamians and Minoans, but not the cow.
A people may evolve by adopting new ideas/beliefs, change with
political environment, and racially get mixed with other peoples, but
that does not erase their history. Pakistan -- the land and people of
Indus directly inherits one of the greatest ancient civilizations of
the world, just the same way present-day Iraq, Greece, and Egypt (all
three countries and names also recent in origin) inherits their own great
ancient civilizations. It is irrelevant that the descendents of
Harappans are now mostly Muslims (Pakistanis). Descendents of ancient
Mesopotamians and Egyptians are also now mostly Muslims, descendents
of ancients Greeks and Romans are now mostly Christians. It is time
that all Pakistanis take pride in their past, and protect it from
thievery of other countries like India.
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
Differences between Pakistanis and Indians
Language/linguistics:
About 99% of languages spoken in Pakistan are Indo-Iranian (sub-branches: 75% Indo-Aryan and 24% Iranian), a branch of Indo-European family of languages. All languages of Pakistan are written in the Perso-Arabic script, with significant vocabulary derived from Arabic and Persian. Punjabi, Seraiki, Sindhi, Pashto, Urdu, Balochi, Kashmiri, etc. are the languages spoken in Pakistan.
About 69% of languages spoken in India are Indo-Iranian (sub-branch: Indo-Aryan), 26% are Dravidian, and 5% are Sino-Tibetan and Austro-Asiatic, all unrelated/distinct family of languages. Most languages in India are written in Brahmi- derived scripts such as Devangari, Gurmukhi, Tamil, etc. Hindi, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Assamese, Punjabi, Naga, and many others are the mother-tongue languages spoken in each of India's states.
As you can see both countries have distinct linguistic identities. Even in the case of Punjabi, while it is the mother-tongue of a majority in Pakistan, it represents the mother-tongue of only 2% Indians. Besides, Pakistani Punjabi (Western Punjabi) is distinct in its vocabulary/dialect and writing script when compared to Indian Punjabi (Eastern Punjabi). Another thing to keep in mind is that Indian Punjabi is mostly spoken by Sikhs who consider themselves distinct from the rest of Indians and had been fighting for independence. In the case of Urdu/Hindi, while Hindi is the mother- tongue of a majority in India, Urdu is the mother-tongue of only 8% Pakistanis. Besides, they both are distinct languages, Urdu has a writing script and strong vocabulary derived from Arabic and Persian, whereas Hindi has strong vocabulary derived from Sanskrit and is written in Devangari script. Most Pakistanis can understand English and watch American/Brit movies but that does not make them British/American, same is the case with Hindi.
Race/genetics:
About 70% of Pakistanis are Caucasoid by race, 20% Australoid- Negroid, and 10% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. Majority of Pakistanis are tall with fair skin complexion, similar to Middle Eastern and Mediterranean peoples. While the racial features of each ethnic group are not uniform, Pashtuns are the most Caucasoid, followed by Kashmiris, Baluchis, north Punjabis, and then Sindhis, Seraikis, Urdu-speakers, etc. The Australoid-Negroid and Mongoloid racial elements are quite infused within the dominant Caucasoid genes among Pakistanis, however there are some that have retained their distinct racial characteristics.
About 50% of Indians are Australoid-Negroid by race, 35% Caucasoid, and 15% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. Majority of Indians are darker in their skin complexion, with wider noses, shorter heights, etc. The Australoid-Dravidoid racial element dominates among the lower caste Indians, South Indians, Eastern and Central Indians, etc. The Caucasoid racial element dominates in Northwest Indians and higher caste Indians. The Mongoloid racial element dominates in Northeast Indians and border regions with China.
Obviously, both countries have distinct racial identities. A common international perception based on observance of physical features is that most Pakistanis are lighter skinned than most Indians. Most Pakistanis resemble the looks of peoples inhabiting on its western borders and beyond. Indeed, many Pakistanis also resemble many Northwest Indians or higher caste Indians, but those are a minority in India. Similarly, a few people of Pakistan resemble peoples of South India, lower caste Indians, Northeast India, etc. but they are a minority in Pakistan. And besides, let's say, if some Saudis look similar to the French that does not make them one people, same applies here between Indians and Pakistanis.
Culture/Traditions:
Pakistanis have a distinct culture, traditions and customs. Shalwar kamiz is the dress commonly worn, both by men and women in Pakistan. Pakistani food is rich in meat (including beef), whereas wheat is the main staple. Pashto, Punjabi, Balochi, Sindhi, etc. music and dances are distinctly unique with their own melodies, instruments, patterns and styles. Pakistani arts in metal work, tiles, furniture, rugs, designs/paintings, literature, calligraphy, etc. are distinct and diverse. Pakistani architecture is unique with its Islamic styles. The manners and lifestyles are guided by a blend of Islam and local traditions.
India's commonly worn dress is dhoti for men and sari for women. Indian food is mostly vegetarian, with wheat as the main staple in the north and west, and rice is the main staple in south and east. Hindi, Gujarati, Tamil, Bengali, etc. music and dances are distinctly unique. So are Indian arts in the many areas. Indian architecture is unique in its mostly Hindu styles. The manners and lifestyles of most Indians are guided by Hinduism.
Pakistanis and Indians definitely have distinct cultures of their own. Some Indian women wear shalwar kamiz, but that was introduced by the ancestors of Pakistanis. Many Pakistani food dishes are absent in Indian cuisine and vice versa, and if some dishes are shared, they were also introduced by the ancestors of Pakistanis (like naan, tikka, kabob, biryani/pulao, etc.). There is barely any Hindu architectural influence in Pakistan (Gandhara is Graeco- Buddhist and Harappan is distinct), but significant influences by the ancestors of Pakistanis can be found in India. The lives of most Pakistanis are shaped by Islam, whereas the lives of most Indians are shaped by Hinduism.
History/background:
Pakistanis are a blend of their Harappan, Aryan, Persian, Greek, Saka, Parthian, Kushan, White Hun, Arab, Turkic, Afghan, and Mughal heritage. Waves of invaders and migrants settled down in Pakistan through out the centuries, influencing the locals and being absorbed among them.
Most Indians are a blend of their heritage of Dravidoid-Australoid hunters and gatherers, and Aryans (in north). Northwest Indians have a heritage from Harappans, Aryans, Sakas, and White Huns. Northeast Indians have a heritage based from Mongoloid hunters and gatherers. Also, Turks, Afghans and Mughals ruled north India for centuries.
Pakistan and India have a distinct history and background. The region of Pakistan was never part of India except for 500+ years under the Muslims, and 100 years each under the Mauryans and the British. If any thing, it were the ancestors of Pakistanis who colonized north/northwest India, among them were Harappans, Aryans, Sakas, Kushans, White Huns, Turks, Afghans, and Mughals.
Geography:
Pakistan is geographically unique, with Indus river and its tributaries as its main water supply. It is bordered by the Hindu Kush and Sulaiman Mountain ranges in the west, Karakoram mountain range in the north, Sutlej river and Thar desert in east, and Arabian Sea in the south. The country in its present form was created by the Pakistanis themselves out of the British Raj, the Indus people themselves who are now mostly Muslims.
India is geographically unique, with Ganges river and its tributaries as its water supply in the north, and other river systems in the rest of the country. Himalayas as its northern boundary, Sutlej river and Thar desert as its western border, the jungles of northeast as its eastern border, and Indian Ocean in the south. The mountains in the central-south India are the great divide between Dravidians of the south and Indo-Aryans of the north. The country itself was created by the British, a direct descendent of the remnants of British Raj.
It is evident that India and Pakistan have their own unique geographical environments. Pakistan is located at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East. On the other hand, India is located at the core of South Asia.
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
and 89 years before that, they weren't.
The fact is that most of the Pakistani's are descendants of invaders (turks, mughals, mongols, persians) who conquered India time and time again. So, they aren't Indian originally.
And.. what is this thing you call Indian heritage? Most of the culture, today in India, was introduced by the invaders. Take a look at the Taj Mahal. That is what you call Mughal architect. There is nothing Indian in it.
And.. do not forget that before the British came in, there was no such thing as an United India. It was a bunch of dozen or so small states. Tamil heritage & Punjabi heritage have what in common, that you come and call it one (Indian heritage)?
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
:Dlol…so why is it so many paki girls are using fair and lovely to try to look as gori as me:halo: …
a turikish man making a child to an indian lady, while 99 other dark skinned men do same do make “most pakistani” descent from turkish;)…otherwise pakistani would be more light…
i know pashtoon/afghan are lighter in pak…but they don’t claim hindustan origins…they’re afghan;)
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
THESE ARE RACISTS MYTHS fed to paki to make them feel superiors to indians 
no, they are not!! any time in any place in the world, invaders are A MINORITY!!..it just means a lil part of their genes comes from some invaders…maybe 1%, maybe 5%, maybe10%…
And north indians do share those genetics…cause muslims invaders conquered north india too;);)
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
nice attempt…now exclude all indian states where hindu is not wide spread (karnataka, west bengal, tamil nadu, kerala for example)…and consider north indian muslims…so where’s the difference with pakistani (excluding afghans) except geography???
regional dialects??
by your comparison…it seems north india and south india are two different countries, cause the linguistic, climatic, cutural and culinary differences btw north and south india are greater than btw north india and pakistan
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
But what about so many fair-skinned Pakistanis as % of the total population, Paristonnoor bibijee? We in Punjab are told that we are fairest of all Punjabis (muslim, sikh and hindoos). Why Pakistanis look just like whites and Indians(hondoos) just like blacks?
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
Except for Pashtuns, Kashmiris and Balochis Pakistanis are not lighter skinned or more Caucasoid than North Indians, Punjabis are pretty much the same on both sides and not any lighter than other Desis, I have friends from Jhelum, Lahore and Jhang and don't see the difference between their complexion and that of other North Subcontinentians, I admit about 20% of Punjabis are relatively light skinned (wheatish) but I find the same amount amongst Bengalis and Gujaratis, maybe people from northwest of the Subcontinent are slightly lighter on average due to the area coming being slightly more Aryanised but it’s negligible, I think Gujaratis tend to be prettier compared to Punjabis and that's a plus point for Indian Gujaratis.
I don't know why people are so obsessed with light skin, it must be so nice to be a lovely warm even brown all over, if I didn’t fear skin cancer I would go to tanning salons everyday.
Remember the girls you see in Pakistani dramas are far from reality, my gori friend was watching Mere Apne Mere Sapne with us one day and she mentioned how the actresses don't look very much like the Paki (Punjabi) girls at school and resembled Afghan and Iranian girls more.
Pakis stop kidding yourself only a very small minoirty of Pak people are from Muslim invaders/migrants, and brown skin is cool, and don't hate or look down on anyone and you can be of South Asian descent and be a better Muslim than anyone, don't be proud, don't be ashamed, just be content and put Islam above everything else.
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
Since language and race is being discussed:
Language/linguistics:
About 99% of languages spoken in Pakistan are Indo-Iranian (sub-branches: 75% Indo-Aryan and 24% Iranian), a branch of Indo-European family of languages. All languages of Pakistan are written in the Perso-Arabic script, with significant vocabulary derived from Arabic and Persian. Punjabi, Seraiki, Sindhi, Pashto, Urdu, Balochi, Kashmiri, etc. are the languages spoken in Pakistan.
About 69% of languages spoken in India are Indo-Iranian (sub-branch: Indo-Aryan), 26% are Dravidian, and 5% are Sino-Tibetan and Austro-Asiatic, all unrelated/distinct family of languages. Most languages in India are written in Brahmi- derived scripts such as Devangari, Gurmukhi, Tamil, etc. Hindi, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Assamese, Punjabi, Naga, and many others are the mother-tongue languages spoken in each of India's states.
As you can see both countries have distinct linguistic identities. Even in the case of Punjabi, while it is the mother-tongue of a majority in Pakistan, it represents the mother-tongue of only 2% Indians. Besides, Pakistani Punjabi (Western Punjabi) is distinct in its vocabulary/dialect and writing script when compared to Indian Punjabi (Eastern Punjabi). Another thing to keep in mind is that Indian Punjabi is mostly spoken by Sikhs who consider themselves distinct from the rest of Indians and had been fighting for independence. In the case of Urdu/Hindi, while Hindi is the mother- tongue of a majority in India, Urdu is the mother-tongue of only 8% Pakistanis. Besides, they both are distinct languages, Urdu has a writing script and strong vocabulary derived from Arabic and Persian, whereas Hindi has strong vocabulary derived from Sanskrit and is written in Devangari script. Most Pakistanis can understand English and watch American/Brit movies but that does not make them British/American, same is the case with Hindi.
Race/genetics:
About 70% of Pakistanis are Caucasoid by race, 20% Australoid- Negroid, and 10% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. Majority of Pakistanis are tall with fair skin complexion, similar to Middle Eastern and Mediterranean peoples. While the racial features of each ethnic group are not uniform, Pashtuns are the most Caucasoid, followed by Kashmiris, Baluchis, north Punjabis, and then Sindhis, Seraikis, Urdu-speakers, etc. The Australoid-Negroid and Mongoloid racial elements are quite infused within the dominant Caucasoid genes among Pakistanis, however there are some that have retained their distinct racial characteristics.
About 50% of Indians are Australoid-Negroid by race, 35% Caucasoid, and 15% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. Majority of Indians are darker in their skin complexion, with wider noses, shorter heights, etc. The Australoid-Dravidoid racial element dominates among the lower caste Indians, South Indians, Eastern and Central Indians, etc. The Caucasoid racial element dominates in Northwest Indians and higher caste Indians. The Mongoloid racial element dominates in Northeast Indians and border regions with China.
Obviously, both countries have distinct racial identities. A common international perception based on observance of physical features is that most Pakistanis are lighter skinned than most Indians. Most Pakistanis resemble the looks of peoples inhabiting on its western borders and beyond. Indeed, many Pakistanis also resemble many Northwest Indians or higher caste Indians, but those are a minority in India. Similarly, a few people of Pakistan resemble peoples of South India, lower caste Indians, Northeast India, etc. but they are a minority in Pakistan. And besides, let's say, if some Saudis look similar to the French that does not make them one people, same applies here between Indians and Pakistanis.
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
at 70% white(aryan) racially, we are almost as much white/aryan a nation as is USA (which is 72% here).. We are more white than most of the latin American countries.
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
The fact is that most of the Pakistani's are descendants of invaders (turks, mughals, mongols, persians) who conquered India time and time again. So, they aren't Indian originally.
And.. what is this thing you call Indian heritage? Most of the culture, today in India, was introduced by the invaders. Take a look at the Taj Mahal. That is what you call Mughal architect. There is nothing Indian in it.
And.. do not forget that before the British came in, there was no such thing as an United India. It was a bunch of dozen or so small states. Tamil heritage & Punjabi heritage have what in common, that you come and call it one (Indian heritage)?
Thank you..this is thus far the best post which explains facts.
When mughals invaded India, they came with thousands of turks, arabs, persians and they all pushed Tamils and Original indians to South. They ruled for centuries on half of Nothern India even though they were minorities. They married and had children with local indians as well. The race got mixed up and some didn't. You can still see the traces in Nothern Indians becuz their encesters were immigrants from central Asia. Most of those muslims migrated to Pakistan later on.
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
Caucasoid race is not defined by "whiteness" .... The system used by Americans to identify race as a choice between White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian is totally unscientific! The main sub-branches of Caucasoid race are Indo-Mediterranean and Nordic (North European).
Caucasoids are defined by physical features and not skin color (dark skin is caused by long-term high sun exposure in hot desert and near tropical geographical environments). Here are some references taken from Wikipedia Encyclopedia:
"Caucasoid describes humans primarily from Europe, the Middle East (southwestern Asia), North Africa, the northwestern Indian subcontinent and parts of Central Asia, and is one of the four traditional major races recognized by physical anthropologists.
"The Caucasoid or white race is not defined by social opinions about pale 'whiteness', which are a folk taxonomy, but are based upon the shared anatomical features of Western Eurasian humans. The term applies to one of a varying number of races defined by various racial theories.
"Craniometry is based solely on skull shapes, and does not take into account other characteristics such as pigmentation or hair texture. Caucasoids present the lowest degree of projection of the alveolar bones which contain the teeth, and a notable size promenence of the crainom and forehead region. Caucasoids show a projection of the midfacial region which, among modern humans is common.
"Caucasoids also possess a Western Eurasian dental pattern, where the incisor teeth are more pointed and sharper than those of other races."
Additionally, according to H. H. Risley, Caucasians are also mostly fine-nosed per his data:
Race -------------- Nasal Index ----------- Nasal Type
Pakistani Sindhi (Rajput) -- 71.6 -- fine-nosed sub-leptorrhine
Pakistani Punjabi (Jat) ---- 68.8 -- fine-nosed leptorrhine
Indian Dravidian (Kadian) -- 89.8 -- broad-nosed platyrrhine
By comparison, the French of Paris average 69.4, while pure Africans average between 90 and 100.
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
Pakistanis are a blend of their Harappan, Aryan, Persian, Greek, Saka, Parthian, Kushan, White Hun, Arab, Turkic, Afghan, and Mughal heritage. Waves of invaders and migrants settled down in Pakistan through out the centuries, influencing the locals and being absorbed among them.
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
That’s not quite true. Muslims were established in India as the dominant religious group for centuries before the Mughals came. Remember, the Mughals original war against an Indian state was against the Delhi Sultanate, not against any hindu nation. Northern India as far south as the Deccan was ruled by various Muslim states for 3-4 centuries before the Mughals invaded.
At all levels of society there was mixing between the original Muslim invading armies and hindu natives. Muslim princes would marry (and generally convert for convenience) hindu princesses to cement political alliances. Muslim soldiers, ordered to settle far from their homelands and families, would start new families with natives. Hindus converted in hordes for reasons of either genuine conviction, or to gain favour with the ruling classes.
We’re coming up to nearly 1 millenium of genetic mixing between the originally hindu (and bhuddist) natives of India and the Turkish/Persian/Afghan/Arab Muslim ruling class of India.
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
oye maddy..isn’t thats what i said 
it would be interesting to see the statistic on population of muslims in Indian areas before Mughals landed.
Re: Why Do Pakistanis Reject their Indian heritage?
No 
You said it all began with the Mughals, but it didn’t 
Based on military strength, I don’t think the Muslim population of India was significantly changed as a result of the Mughal arrival. Babur came to India, with just 12,000 men under his command. The army of the Delhi Sultanate that he defeated consisted of close to 100,000 men, mainly Afghans.
Mughal India was not heralded by any kind of major population transfer. The Mughals simply took over the reigns of power, and were extremely effective rulers.