Before I begin to factually disseminate the popular ‘LIE’ about the existence of ‘India’ for thousands of years, I’d like to start with the strong statement that;
There was no country such as India before 1947, there was no Hindustan before the 17th century. There was no Hinduism before Britishers linked Hindu-+-ism, there was no Hindu before Persians mispronounced the word #Sindu as Hindu. Indus is not in India yet it is called India.
Those were my words when I tweeted and while many supported the factual discourse, some came back with their usual rants and asked for a detailed report with credible references.
So lets start with a nutshell before we get down to the business.
- The word “India” traditionally referred to Indus river which wholly-
solely flows inside the territory of modern day Pakistan.
- Indus River which in Sanskrit ‘Sindu River’ became the identity of the region that connects ONLY Indus river i.e starting from Tibetan Plateau till the Arabian Sea. If you look at the map carefully, this river connects regions like Kashmir, Punjab, KPK, Balochistan & Sindh – all of that are Pakistan today.
- The land where India exist today has no geographical ‘link’ to the Indus River.
- Sindu/Indus Civilization also originated and expanded only within the borders of Pakistan today whereas India mostly had a civilization called Ganges (Ganga civilization)
- If we factually translate ancient history to modern times then Indus Civilization (IVC) is Pakistan & Ganges Civilization is India
- Because IVC was more advanced & flourishing than the Ganges, the region adopted the name India from Indus(IVC) & not the Ganges. Or It could be argued that Indians are proud of something that they have nothing to do with(geographically/historically).
- In terms of ancient practices, several Hindu scholars admitted that Indic people (people of IVC) never practiced the ‘Caste-System’ like the Gangetic people did.
Now when you bring up those facts, even many Pakistanis would come up with the following confusing questions:-
Q-1) What about Hindu, Hind, Hinduism and Hindustan?
Ans) Not a single religious scripture of Hinduism from any Hindu holy book has mentioned anything like Hinduism, Hindu, Hind and Hindustan.
Not a single reference from any Hindu holy books like Gita, Puranas, etc can be found mentioning any of these words including Hinduism.
Why? because the word Hindu is a misnomer of the word Sindu (a river as mentioned above), this misnomer was created by Persian or Arab traders when they came to the land across Sindh/Sindu (modern-day Pakistan) & started calling Sindu as ‘Hindu’.
That is why in Arabic and Persian text you learn the word Hind or Hindi, but because of the misconceptions in your mind, you assume that historically those words meant for modern-day India, in all honesty, back then Arabs or Persians wouldn’t know what hell could be beyond Indus River, they meant Hindu/Hindi for Sindu(land of Dariyah-e-Sindh).
Q-2) What about Hinduism? Wasn’t it the oldest religion in the region?
Just like India/Hind/Hindustan never existed, and they were merely mispronunciation of the geographical terms that represent modern-day Pakistan, Hinduism too did not exist and in-fact the word Hindu-ism is not even a localized term, this word has no history prior to the British invasion of the subcontinent.
You must be amazed right? ‘Ism’ is an English term which means a distinctive practice and honestly speaking, ancient people of Indus Valley never spoke English. How can this religion be the oldest in the world when it did not even exist before 18th Century A.D.?
Before the British occupied the subcontinent by force, there was no such religion as “Hinduism” instead there were many distinct and diverse cults in the region that the British grouped into their terminology of “Hinduism”
According to a Scholar David Lorenzen, “Hinduism is an invention of the Europeans, nothing more and nothing less. It should more properly be subdivided into the religions of Brahmanism and Shaivism, Shaktism, Tantrism and Saurism.”
There is a well-researched report on the subject, using references from credible ‘Hindu-Scholars’, that says;
“There was no Hinduism but Brahminism which survived centuries since the Aryans first arrived here. Cunning kingmakers who eventually came up with a hotchpotch religion to appease the masses that came to be known as Hinduism.”
Many Tamils and South-Indians to date, reject Hinduism for the above mentioned reasons. All you need is an exclusive study about how Hinduism got invented, yes a study from credible sources.
So yeah, people of ancient Indus Valley never followed Hinduism of today, Hinduism never existed. Following are the ‘gods’ that were worshiped during the times of IVC vs during the formation of Hinduism.
Popular Gods in Hinduism today:
Rama, Krishna, Kali, Ganesha, Hanuman, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Saraswati, Lakshmi and Shakti
Popular Gods during Vedic Times:
Indra, Agni, Soma, the Ashvins, Varuna, the Rudras, Mitra.
Hinduism vs Vedic religions(Indus Valley)
Reincarnation is no where attested in the Vedas, it rather hints at the ‘life after death.” This removes the very foundation of the modern-day Hinduism which believes in Reincarnation.
The Caste System:
The Vedic era never had a rigid caste-system, some of its verses were later interpolated as giving religious sanctions to the idea..
Cow-Slaughter | Beef:
The Vedic Scriptures contain a description of people slaughtering cows and eating beef. This is in conflict with core conventions of Hinduism which preaches Cow to be a sacred symbol of life and treated as a motherly giving animal, considered as another member of the Hindu family.
Hindu Holy Books:
Bhagwat Gita, Ramayan, Puranas and Mahabharata, these are the doctrines that postdate the Vedas and by-far over-weigh them in importance today.
So basically you have two different religions. The ancient Vedic people practice religions very much opposed to what Hindus of modern day follow. The distinction between them is much more thicker than than for instance Islam & Judaism.
Q-2) What about our DNA – Isn’t it same with most Indians?
ans) This is the most offensive slander extremists in India use against Pakistanis, even their intellectuals, scholars, journalists and those Pakistanis that are under their payroll use questions or points like this simply undermine Pakistani identity and nationhood.
The reality is far from truth. I am going to mention the DNA study which not only defy this nonsensical and absurd ‘Questions’ but also justify Pakistanis exclusiveness from rest of today’s India.
Pakistani ethnic-groups are divided into two major sects:-
Indo-Aryan = Harappans + Aryans
Indo-Iranic = Avestan-Iranians
There are Iron-age DNA samples from the region, the following is the chart for comparison. People living in the land of Pakistan today shared mostly common bloodline and DNA, which differs from that of the Indians.
It was through these various influences by which our nation would be forged into its multi-ethnic society today. Pakistanis are divided genetically into 11 distinct groups: Baloch, Brahui, Burusho, Hazara, Kalash, Kashmiri, Makrani, Parsi, Pashto, Punjabi, and Sindhi. Other groups are also being investigated at present such as the Kho (Chitrali) and Baltis. The studies show that these ethnic groups share about 40% to 60% of their DNA with South Asians, about 40% to 60% with Eurasians, and about 20% to 40% with East Asians, West Asians, or Sub-Saharan Africans. These percentages vary between various ethnic groups and subgroups.
Some Facts Worth Noting
-Pakistanis are mostly Caucasoid by skull type
-They mainly speak Indo-Iranic languages. (up to 99%) . Balochi, Sindhi, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Undri (Urdu) and Pakhtun are Indo-Iranic languages as are all the other languages of Pakistan which descend from a common proto-Indo-Iranic language around the second millennia BC.Only Brahui (Dravidian), Baltistani (Sino-Tibetian), and Burusho (language isolate) are non-Indo-Iranic, however it’s speakers are not that geneticly distinct form the rest of Pakistanis.
-They are geographically located around the Indus River & Tributaries
-They formed a single civilisation/nation from the days of the Indus Civilisation starting in 3000 BC
-They carry common R1A genetic markers clearly indicating obvious common ancestry. Mostly the north western Iranic speakers and the Dardic speakers are said to be closely related with a higher frequency of R1A genetic markers as opposed to the Indo-Aryan speaking population with slightly lower R1A frequencies (mainly Punjabis and Sindhis), however they are still all connected.
There are two types of Pakistanis in Pakistan & both are dangerous
They defy everything local/native in the name of Islam & project themselves as second-class Arabs. For this lot, celebrating anything in history that pre-dates Islam in the subcontinent is anti-Islam.
The question is, aren’t the Iraqi-Muslims proud of their ancient identity/region? Aren’t the Egyptian-Muslims, Indonesian-Muslims proud of their ancient history and identity? Are they less Muslims than the Pakistani-Muslims? Celebrating, owning and accepting your ancient past will not make you less of a Muslim, it will only prevent you from the identity-crisis.
The Indianized-Pakistanis believe that pre-Islamic history was Indian and that they were ‘Indian’ before they were Pakistanis. This is a common trend for Indianized-Pakistanis to unquestionably swallow Indian propaganda and see their pre-history as “Indian”.
The truth is, most ancient civilizations based in the Indus (modern-day Pakistan) did NOT spread over South Asia. They remained and flourished in the Indus Valley, separate from Gangetic India.
“India” “Hindustan” “Hind” and “Hinduism” did not exist prior to the 18th century. If they did exist as far back as pre-historic times, some ancient texts whether Buddhist, Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit, Persian, or any other would have mentioned it.
So this shameless lot called the Indianized-Pakistanis need to ask that what were the people of this region called before the invention of words like India/Indian/Hindu/Hindustani by foreign-invaders?
How can a Pakistani be an Indian when this word ‘Indian’ was imposed or defined by Invaders/Aliens who came from Europe?
How can I be a Hindustani when this term too was coined by the Invaders hailing from the Central-Asian region?
Chaudhery Rehmat Ali- Map of Pakistan
Give the facts above, how many Pakistanis have sincerely studied about the founder of the word ‘Pakistan’ and the map of Pakistan?
They will be amazed that the leaders of Pakistan movement weren’t ignorant of the facts about Indus Valley’s connection to Pakistan.
Chaudhry Rehmat Ali coined the name of Pakistan for this land coined in 1933. The name Pakistan is an acronym of four regions that don’t just share common religion but also common geography, shared-cultures and common ancient history.
Pakistan = P-(Punjab) A(afghania/Pathan) K(Kashmir) Stan(Balochistan)
To him, the separate homeland in the region that he was talking about first emerged in a time period he calls ‘The Dawn of History.’ Though he doesn’t attach any date or year to this, with the help of a map (titled ‘Pakistan at the Dawn of History’), he explains how the civilizations that first emerged beside the mighty Indus and those that sprang up around the banks of River Ganges were somewhat separate.
Can you believe it? Even though Bengali Muslims were also at the forefront for a separate Muslim homeland, Chaudhry Rehmat Ali did not include Bengal under Pakistani map, he rather opted for a separate homeland for the Bengali Muslims, to which he named as Bangistan.
That is because he understood that Pakistan is the land of Indus which does not include the regions of Bengal. While Islam was the primary motivation for the independence and establishment of a separate Muslim-Homeland, our founding fathers never neglected our ancient history which is Indus Valley Civilization.
Quaid-e-Azam on the word ‘India’
According to many sources, and several references can be found in different sources of history where MA Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, objected to the adoption of the word ‘India’ for Bharat/Hindustan.
In 1947 M Ali Jinnah wrote to Mountbatten:
“It is a pity that for some mysterious reason Hindustan have adopted the word ‘India’ which is certainly misleading and is intended to create confusion” Quaid knew Delhi was going to piggyback on it later. Sell our history as its own.
If you have listen to MA Jinnah’s speeches, he once mentioned that ‘Hindu-India and Muslim-India’ must be separated.
That is because by that time, India was considered a continent and not a country or a nation. People perceived India as how Brazilians perceive South-America or how Germans perceive Europe.
But New-Delhi criminally, begin to opt for the name ‘India’ and with this one trick, the 7-decade old republic not only stole for itself a pedigree, but has also nurtured a narrative that since it is “India”, is is the one wronged by being partitioned. And that Pakistan was taken out of its territory.
Many to date question the rationale behind India’s name? The name India was driven from the name Indus a river that flows inside Pakistan, the name is also driven from the Indus Valley Civilization, a civilization that wholy-solely remained under Pakistani boundaries. Both Harappa and Mohenjo Daro are in Pakistan.
But this article is not defying the term India for the country India today, we can understand how bad it would have sounded if they would’ve opted for ‘Gandia’ – driven from their civilization the Ganges.
But then why should Pakistan be dubbed with such foreign and alien terms?
What about Bharat?
Then you have this ‘lot’ which is basically from across the border and they are mainly Muslim-bashing, pro-BJP, Hindutvadi elements who would even to this article, reply with ‘What about Bharat”?
Expected Hindutvadi argument: Hind/Hindu/Hindi/Hindustani/India/Indian are all foreign invented terms for the land of Indus which has nothing to do with modern-day India but then what about Bharat? The land maybe all Bharat, the entire subcontinent was named Bharat hence even Pakistanis were Bharati at some point of time
Factual discourse: Bharat Varsh in the Ramayan means only the ‘realm of King-Bharat’, with exaggerated descriptions of its size, typical of that era. There is not a single reference in Ramayan that defined the boundaries of the so-called Bharat. It did not even define it as a nation or country, its literal meaning is to bear/to carry.
It was much later that Hindutva which is a extremist-political model of Hinduism, came up with fictitious maps that were never supported by any credible sources.
Not single book of Punjabi & Sindhi literature mentions the word ‘Bharat’ from past 1000 years.
Fictitious Maps of so the called Bharat
Following are the maps the some Indians normally propagate to sell their narrative.
These Indians claim that Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri-Lanka, Tibet, Burma and Bhuttan were all part of ‘India’ or ‘Bharat’.
This is not some childish fantasy but an actual political map conceived by various Indian leaders from past to present.
Now what is the basis of this claim? just like how Indians are indoctrinated into calling Indus Valley Civilization as theirs, they are also indoctrinated into believing that there use to be an Indian empire which stretched from Burma to Afghanistan.
This is not just factually incorrect but so absurd and so nonsensical that many Indian scholars even today simply laugh at it. You can find number of programs and debates on Youtube where Indian intellectuals rejecting this nonsense with facts but what makes this nonsense so popular?
Because not many have come forward to challenge the idea A- there was no India back then let-alone the empire, B- the empires that these Indians are so proud of, were not ‘Indian’ or ‘Hindu’.
Out of last 6000 years of the so called Akhand Bharat, the region was only united for less than 1000 years. Even that came in 3 diff periods; Mauryas, Mughals & the British Empire.
Although none of these empires can ever be construed as ‘Indian Empire’ or Akhand-Bharat or Hindu-Rashtra, even for the sake of the argument if I agree with this nonsense, then this unification was only for a thousand-years, what about the other 5000 years when the modern day Pakistan and other modern-day states remained exclusively separated from modern-day India? WHAT ABOUT THAT?
If Ashoka fought war against tribes and kingdoms to annex and expand territories, how was he the native of the Indus? if Indians consider Asoka to be the native of the land of Sindu river then why do they object in calling Muhammad Bin Qasim, native to Sindh?
Basically Ashoka was as much an outsider in Indus as Muhammad Bin Qasim was.
Pakistan Is Much Older Than You Think. The republic of “India” was formed in 1947 by joining together various princely states of the peninsula into one country. The rest that refused to join (like Hyderabad, Goa, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Assam, Junagard, and Kashmir, which triggered wars both externally and internally), were invaded by force.
Pakistani people on the otherhand were a nation going back at least 3000 BC. The maps showing the Indus Civilisation -one of the oldest in the world – spread all over the Indus region, which it today Pakistan. Most of the IVC’s map coincides with that of Pakistan’s present day map. It’s main cities Harrappa, Mohenjodaro are also situated in Punjab and Sindh, well within Pakistan.
Many Indian propagandists and Pan-’South Asian’ Pakistanis blindly argue there was no border dividing the two lands. If we apply that logic, then most of the world was “one nation”. The modern-day borders are a relatively new concept. Most of the world was not divided by internationally known borders as we know them today. Indian propagandists also like to parade small sites like Lothal as “proof” of their claims on the IVC and other pre-historic Pakistani civilisations. While the IVC was based in Pakistan, it had colonies in Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, India but you don’t see anyone claiming the IVC or Vedic as “Afghan” or “Iranian” civilisations.
Pakistan lacked leadership. Jinnah passed away too soon & had bigger problems in the one year he got. Men after him refused to dispute ‘India” as Greece has done. Thus, the daylight robbery of our history went unchecked.
-mtDNA sequence diversity of Hazara ethnic group from Pakistan by A. Rakha (2017)
-An Ethnolinguistic and Genetic Perspective on the Origins of the Dravidian-Speaking Brahui in Pakistan by L. Pagani (2017)
-Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a by P.A. Underhill (2010)
-Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan by R. Qamar; Q. Ayub; A. Mohyuddin (2002)
-Whole genome sequencing of an ethnic Pathan (Pakhtun) from the north-west of Pakistan by M. Ilyas (2015)
-Genetic analysis of mitochondrial DNA control region variations in four tribes of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan by S. Bhatti (2016)
-Genetic characterization of the Makrani people of Pakistan from mitochondrial DNA control-region data by M.H. Siddiqui (2015)
-Mitochondrial DNA variation in the Sindh population of Pakistan by S. Bhatti (2015)
-Genetic perspective of uniparental mitochondrial DNA landscape on the Punjabi population, Pakistan by S. Bhatti (2017)
-“Like sugar in milk”: reconstructing the genetic history of the Parsi population by Gyaneshwer Chaubey
Major credit goes to the ‘Ancient Pakistan’ Blog which compiled information various credible references and also to all those who are now speaking up.