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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The central idea of the write-up is that Indians (more appropriately Hindus) are quite different from Pakistanis (Muslims). This contributor agrees that they are different because no Pakistani wants to be like Indians and no Indian wants to be like Pakistani. They have their own reasons for that. The most practical and common reason is that India and Pakistan are two separate countries with no really good relations. But, it is generally observed that as compared to Indians, Pakistanis are more vocal to highlight the difference. May be they want to nip the evil in the bud--the evil of voice that is occassionaly raised by some Pakistani elites that the separation of Pakistan on religious grounds was a folly. Well, that is history and now they are two (three) distinctly separate countries and every body is reconciled to this fact. They are not going to be one again in the foreseeable future. But one aspect, which is a permanent reality, makes and keeps them one. They belong to same neighbourhood. That is the geographical area south of Hindukush and Himalayas. You may call this area as East Indies, not Indian sub-continent, not South Asia. East Indies (like West Indies), because most of the times in the ancient past there have been a number of kingdoms in this area. Some times united and some times fighting with each other. The biggest politically forced union of the area was under British Raj. History books tell us that prior to that Ashoka and Akbar also ruled vast areas in the region. Presently, East Indies have political unions by the name of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bhutan and to some extent Afghanistan and Burmah with independent (sovereign) administrations. In today's world inter-national borders are hard to be broken. But economic conditions and some other conditions like religion, culture and ethnicity force breaking, uniting, grouping and regrouping of the nations. USSR, Germany(s)and the likes are practical examples. In case of East Indies that is the land mass lying south of Hindukush and Himalayas, such break-ups and unions have taken place only among themselves even under foreign rulers. The most recent being in 1947 (India-Pakistan break-up), 1971(Pakistan-Bangladesh break-up) and 1975 (India-Sikkim union). This is because geography of the area unites them in spite of the political differences on acount of various factors. It continues and continues mainly because of the geography of the region which has no formidable mountains and water masses to hinder the smooth flow of people although temporary patches of forced political barriers do slow down the process.
The purpose of narrating the above story was to tell that there may be many differences in the people of different regions of East Indies but they belong to same neighborhood because geography of the area does not put any obstacle in their union. And from the time immemorial their genes and blood has been intermingling, with the result that the descendants of fair colored people have become blackish and vice-versa. The entry of whites from north-west has trickled down up to south and the dravids (blakish people) from south have pierced upto north. Concentration of fair colored people is in the north and that of dark complexioned people is in the southern area. Each group of people have mixture of elite and dull people. If one is physically strong, the other is better in scientific aptitude. No religion that is practised in the region, originated or imported, is specific to a single group of people. Each religion has people from all groups in varying proportion. Political grouping and regrouping are not going to stop. Countries will continue to shape and reshape with changed names, with changed political administrators. Period of sixty odd years is nothing in the history of countries. There is no use in finding the difference because the genes are mixing and remixing. Every individual is unique and different from others whether he presently belongs to same country or same religion.
Hello I am a Hindu originally from India. I don't know I stumbled upone this article which appears to be very one sided. What this article does not mention about is that Taxila was the highest seat of Hinduism up to 600 BC. However as Buddhism which originated in Bihar started to spread under the Rule of Kind Ashoka who was one of the greatest Hindu empreror in 200 BC. His state stretched from Afaghanistan to Bangal and From Kashmir to just north of Tamilnadu. Under his rule, Buddhism spread all over the Indian subcontinent. Hinduism was revived in the 8th Centuary and the entire subcontinent became Hindu. Iranian Avesta religion and Hinduism have the same Vedic origins. They worshiped common gods,etc. Partha or Arjuna of Mahabharat established Parthia more than 5000 years ago. I read a census book written by British researchers that proved that 75% of Pakistanis were Hindu converts. Several Pakistani Punjabi Muslims have Hindu-Rajput, Hindu-Gujjar Names. So what is the conclusion? Do not cut your roots. Societies have changed religion many times over the past history. Who knows what will be the future religion of the Indian Subcontinent. May be someone will re-wrtie the history to prove that there were no Muslims in Pakistan! Smart people need facts not fiction.
Thanks
Ajay
Hi,
All information you put is wroong.
almost all muslims in Indian Subcontinent INDIA PAKISTAN BANGLADESH were Hindu and Buddhist.
Were converted forcably or by putting heavy (jezia) tax. Same like in present day Iran. Parsi who migreted to India prefered not to convert not to pay heavy tax for life. You imagine now subconitnent muslim popualation is almonst India 17 + Bangladesh 14 + Pakistan 18 = 50 Crore do you think all are having acsstpry of ARAB. All are converts from Hindu see Histroy on wikepedia dont refer pakistani Books which are wroong teaching. or conduct DNA testing compare it with Indian and ARAB you will get scientific result who were your ancestor Hindu or ARAb.
LMFAO how do you then explain the 4.6 million hindus and sikhs that migrated from pakistan to india during partition.
You are trying hide the Hindu ancestory of Pakistanis. Pakistan was always the part of India. Most pakistanis are the descendants of Hindus. Some pakistanis still uses Hindu tytles, such as Raja, Rana, Bhatti, Bhat etc.
No, Arabs never invaded India retard, the Rajput Scythians killed the invader's in Sindh, majority of Pakistan has Gujjars, Jats, Rajputs, Arains, Pashtuns, Balochis, and Kashmiris, this is only two percent of India's population. Gujjars are Kushan and Jats are from Scythians, yes, DNA proves this.
Hinduism is a bastardized religion from pre vedic Kalash religions that developed in central India by Brahmins and you force converted the Animist australoid tribes. This is why R1a1 in high in Bengali Brahmins, also, Jats are Scythians are kicked the Hindu's coward arrses and the Hindus used their cunning ways to bring the Jat nobles into the kshtriya fold, similar to how they treat anybody that kisses their arrse, the caste system is not followed by Saka vedic Jats who are warlike and love manual labor and farming. The Hindu considers these jobs to be dirty, yet the Jat likes it a lot.
I'm a munj or Manj Rajputs Royal Warriors Clans of the United Punjab Pakistan and India Manj Rajputs ancestors from Jaisalmer Rajputana and settled in Hattar Ludhiana west of Ludhiana Punjab establish a own State his Raikot Ancestors of Munj or Manj Rajputs name was Rai Mokal Chand Manj and Rai Tulsi Das 1345 A D Converted to islam by Pir Makkdom Shah Jahaniya of uch Multan by Sufism Munj or Manj Rajputs majority are Muslim some are remain Hindu and few are Sikh......Manj Rajputs Rajputs Descendants of Sri Krishna and his Queen Rukmini same share Lineage with Bhati Rajputs
This idiotic article only shows hoe fearful the current Pakistanis to show up their actual ancestry. they fear to accept their lineage as it will lead to collapse of Pakistan paper house.
Post a Comment