What about the Hindu past of Pakistan, Afganisthan

you guys are wrong here. most paksitanis do not deny thier hindu past. we have nothing against hindusim, its a great ancient religion of the region. The thing pakistanis deny however is that often we hear present day indians claming pakistan to be the part of present day india. The thing i mean to say is that lets say some one sitting in bombay or calcuatta would be claming that pakistan belongs to india. now why would bengali man from calcutta or maharashtaran man from bombay say that? what do they have to do with the present day pakistanis who are punjabis, pathans, balochis sindhis?? and why would they claim the land of pakistan?

Edited by betaab - 31-Jul-2007 at 23:29

Mr. Marcopolo,

Originally posted by M. Nachiappan While India still has Islam, Muslims and their reportedly monuments (with usual controversies), how is that nothing or few exist in Pakistan?

Originally posted by Sparten As anyone knows the word Hindu, refers to the inhabitants of lands east of the Indus and not their religions, until Mughal times.   Hinduis, never really spread in Pakistan it was buddhist until Islam.

Originally posted by betaab ^ i think ur confusing buddihist monuments with hindu monuments

Originally posted by Sparten Gharani, you have lived in Pakistan, how much "Hindu| is there. Incidentally, the Hindu religion is very much a gangatic plain thing.

I am glad somebody brought up Taxila. Taxila was known to be a great learning centre way before Buddha was even born. Buddha was said to have lived around 450 BC, and Buddhism never spread before Ashoka adopted it and sent his kins all over the world to spread it. That was around 220 BC. Ashoka's grandfather, Chandragupta , and the founder of the Mauryan empire was a hindu, and his main advisor, Chanakya actually taught at Taxila. In 326 BC, Alexander defeated Ambhi, king of Taxila and also a hindu. Hinduism is over 3000 year old, and Budhism is a relative newcomer compared to hinduism.  Obviously hinduism prevailed before buddhism took root. It can also be argued that budhism is not a religion, but a way of life, so in essence you can follow both the 'religions' at once.

It is said that King Taksha founded both Tashkent and Taxila. In any case, it was only after king ashoka, that Taxila started teaching buddhist thought. Mauryan empire under Chandragupta and Bimbusar covered entire Pakistan, afghanistan and parts of Iran and old USSR. The whole culture was destroyed by the epthalites or the white huns in about 400 AD (some say ..the ancestors of present day jatts). The buddhist, or hindu culture never recovered after that. Jatts to this day do not follow hinduism or islam in its truest form.  Hindu jatts do not care much for brahmins, allow remarriage of widows etc. Muslim jatts were never the most fervent of followers of Islam...and Sikh Jatts are a brand of their own.

yup for the last thousand years atleast^

Originally posted by Tiggs Buddha was said to have lived around 450 BC, and Buddhism never spread before Ashoka adopted it and sent his kins all over the world to spread it. That was around 220 BC. Ashoka's grandfather, Chandragupta , and the founder of the Mauryan empire was a hindu, and his main advisor, Chanakya actually taught at Taxila. In 326 BC, Alexander defeated Ambhi, king of Taxila and also a hindu. Hinduism is over 3000 year old, and Budhism is a relative newcomer compared to hinduism.  Obviously hinduism prevailed before buddhism took root. It can also be argued that budhism is not a religion, but a way of life, so in essence you can follow both the 'religions' at once. Mauryan empire under Chandragupta and Bimbusar covered entire Pakistan, afghanistan and parts of Iran and old USSR. The whole culture was destroyed by the epthalites or the white huns in about 400 AD (some say ..the ancestors of present day jatts). The buddhist, or hindu culture never recovered after that. Jatts to this day do not follow hinduism or islam in its truest form.  Hindu jatts do not care much for brahmins, allow remarriage of widows etc. Muslim jatts were never the most fervent of followers of Islam...and Sikh Jatts are a brand of their own.

 

... Near exact! Around 400AD the existing culture of the region had undergone a massive destruction. It carried on by incorporating a lot from outside in name of religion.

 

The sects, rajputs, jatts, gujjars etc and the language Punjabi, Sindi etc exist on both sides of the region, India and pak. The Indian side follows Hinduism from its start and what the pak side followed till the newer religion Islam was bought in?? Do anyone set there to put a stmt that even the Indian side had no Hinduism in its very past?

 

The Indus region in its later stage followed the Vedic Style of life, which is nothing but what is called Hinduism in modern day. The birth of idol worship progressed during this Vedic reign and has been carried forward which is still in practice.

 

By mapping the respective periods in ^ above, anyone can say what existed in today�s pak region that time.

 

Related to Afghanistan, hopefully Hinduism hadn�t made much as Buddhism did.

 

I can see few asserting that the people of today�s Pakistan region just undergone a name change and nothing more, though some other time claim, nothing in name Hinduism existed in that region. Fine!

Edited by pumaaa123 - 03-Aug-2007 at 07:31