<!--emo&:argue--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/argue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='argue.gif' /><!--endemo--> [richhinduism] Defects in Hinduism
DIVINE DISCOURSE ON 15.9.2006
Shri Datta Swami
Today even a mosquito is killing the man by giving dangerous fever. The man used to say, âI will quash you like a mosquito.â This means that mosquito is the most negligible creature. But today the mosquito has become an instrument of Yama to kill the people! What is the reason for this? The situation is reversed. The souls must realize now about their own real strength. It has become zero. If the zero has a number behind it, it gets value of ten, hundred, thousand etc. But when the number becomes absent, any numbers of zeros are zeros only. The soul becomes hero when it is backed by God. Arjuna realized this after the exit of Krishna. He could not save Gopikas from hunters in a forest and then he realized that he has become zero, since Krishna who is like the back number disappeared. He was thinking that he was a hero when he killed all the kauravas in the battlefield. Then he was backed by the Lord. The real worship of God disappeared. What do you mean by the real worship? Worship means service and sacrifice of every body and every thing for the sake of the Lord so that the Lord is pleased by such real love to Him. Worship means practical expression of the divine love or devotion towards God. The main essence of such divine love is the sole aim to please the Lord and not to please himself or any other related soul. This means that the essence of worship is sacrifice for the sake of God and not sacrifice to please yourself or any other related soul. Such divine sacrifice is like the light. When the light disappears, the darkness enters. The darkness is the selfishness which is extended towards ones own family or relatives or caste or Nationality or religion etc. These are the grades in the darkness only because all this is related to souls only and not to God. The darkness is getting diluted as you proceed from yourself to the society. The weakest darkness is still not light. But since concentration of darkness is decreasing by such dilution, it is appreciable. But you should not forget that you are still within the boundaries of darkness only. Thus, the power in your social service cannot save the society. A spoon of sugar cannot change the taste of the ocean. Only the Lord can change this ocean of salt-water in to the ocean of nectar. Today the sins are within the limits of certain control. What is the reason for this? Do you think that these courts and police system are controlling sins? People always have discovered loop holes in every system. The only control of the sins is the concept of God that was established since several generations by the valuable ancient tradition. People are controlled to some extent only due to fear of God and the hell created by God. People know that God knows everything and does not require any witness. Therefore, there is no argument of any case in the hell. There is no need of any advocate in the hell. The sin is shown to you through the divine television which is protected as picture. This is the meaning of word Chitragupta. Such divine concepts are only controlling the sins. Do not think that such concepts are really unreal but they are useful to control the sins and so should be retained. I assuredly tell you that such concepts are really real. Your ignorance of the truth cannot make it unreal. If you are unaware of the snake in the darkness, it does not mean that the snake is unreal. You will know the reality of snake, when it bites you. Therefore, the propagation of divine knowledge and devotion can alone change the society. When all the human beings become the real devotees of the Lord doing the real worship, God is pleased with such divine society. His grace will fall on such society. There will be no problem for any soul. One has to search for the trace of some problem in such society. The only problem in such society will be the absence of any problem! This is the permanent solution. This was the dream of Jesus which is the meaning of His word âKingdom of God.â Leaving this, if you put any amount of effort, it will be only thronging spoons of sugar in to the ocean to turn it sweet.
The main defects in the Hinduism are the concepts of human rebirth and performing the rituals without the true spirit. These two defects must be rectified so that Hinduism will shine like the summer Sun without any black cloud covering it. Due to the concept of re-human birth, Hindus are not caring for the emergency of spiritual effort in this very human birth. They think that they can postpone the spiritual path to the old age and then in the old age they think that they can postpone to the next human re-birth. The student postpones studies to the March. In March he postpones the studies to next September, because there will be another examination in September. Again March and again September! Similarly, again old age and again human re-birth! But, the Christians and Muslims give lot of importance to spiritual line because for them there is only one human life, which is the present one. Therefore, they are giving lot of importance to the studies even before the March or at least in the March. Since, there is only one God and His system cannot differ from one religion to other religion, there must be universality in this concept. Based on this truth, the Hindu must think about the interpretation of human re-birth. In Hinduism it is told that the human birth itself is very rare (Narajanma Durlabhamidamâ¦). Then what about the human re-birth? It is very very very rare. Therefore, Hinduism is more serious in this aspect. Hence, Hindus should be more sincere than others. But why this is reverse? It is due to lack of the right interpretation of the scripture. God can sanction the human re-birth to a soul in a deserving case. The other religions also should not object to the omni-potency of God in such special sanction. If you say that God is also bound by a rule, then God is not the real ruler. The rule becomes the real ruler. Hence, exceptional sanction has to be accepted by other religions also. If you are sincere in the spiritual effort through out your life and if you are unable to complete the journey in the spiritual path in one human life, then God sanctions the re-human birth. The September examination is only for a sincere student who failed in March due to some inevitable problems. The September examination is not meant for a student who failed in March due to inevitable attractions like cinemas etc. The inevitable problem cannot be equalized with the inevitable attraction. Therefore, you should analyze that whether the hurdle in your spiritual journey is inevitable problem or inevitable attraction. If it is inevitable problem, God will certainly help you and solve it even without your request. But if it is inevitable attraction God will leave you to dogs. The Hindu should not take the risk of such rare sanction from God. The President has the power to excuse the killer in a very rare case. Based on this you should not start killing everybody because the President has the power to excuse a killer! Even if there is a chance of other re-human births, they are only degraded births which are equal to animals with a very rare possibility of spiritual upliftment. The other six re-human births are the descending steps, which were revealed by Shri Narasimha Saraswati in the Guru Charithra. At the end you will certainly enter into the endless cycle of animals.
The second main defect in Hinduism is about the absence of real spirit in the rituals. The Hindu should perform the ritual and I am not asking you to leave the ritual. It should be performed with right spirit in right manner to achieve the right fruit. You must understand that the ritual is not a luxurious function to express your blind love on your relatives and friends. It is not a business of exchange of gifts. Today the Hindu rituals have become such functions of exactly opposite point. The very essence of the ritual is the worship of the Lord. In the worship the essence is devotion. Devotion requires feelings. Feelings require the understanding of words. In the Vedic hymns uttered, the meaning is not coming out. By this the root itself is cut. Therefore, such ritual has lost its life from top to bottom. Therefore, the ritual has taken another wrong dimension. The wrong dimension is that the ritual has become a function of mutual business only. Even the theoretical worship of God by words and mind has disappeared. There is no Satsanga in the ritual so that at least the intellectual worship (which is also theoretical) can exist. The total theoretical devotion is lost. The practical devotion is the sacrifice of food and gifts to the deserving devotees. But you are inviting all your relatives and friends only based on your blind love towards them. The only criterion is your blood relationship or friendship. When you analyze them, sometimes they happen to be the greatest sinners and thus they may be demons or ghosts. You are doing practical sacrifice to such demons and ghosts by feeding them and giving gifts to them. The main reason for such sinful sacrifice is only business. Since you have given a gift in their function to them, you are inviting them expecting a gift with accumulated interest! Therefore, invite the devotees and spend the day in the real worship of the Lord by singing devotional songs in your mother tongue. No need of these bloody priests who do not serve the trace of any purpose. They are just like tape recorders who have recited Vedas but not understood anything in Vedas. They call themselves as Vedic Pandits! Pandit means the scholar. The root word Panda is in fact limited to the spiritual knowledge. The Hindu system should be modified in this direction. You should discourage the blind recitation of Vedas and encourage the scholarship in Vedas. In any ritual, you should spend some time in the Satsanga, which is the intellectual worship of God. Then you feed the devotees and give gifts to them. Then get blessings to your newborn child from them so that your child will flourish in all aspects by the grace of God. Such function becomes meaningful and fruitful because your money is properly utilized in proper direction. Otherwise every thing becomes waste and sometimes if the demons and ghosts are present in your relatives, for feeding them, the sin is showered on your child. The child will suffer in several ways. Ofcourse if you are determined to call the ghosts and demons only, it is better to call the ghosts and demons from your Kith and Kin than from outsiders, because the family is always more important than the society. There is only one possibility to justify such blind function. The scripture says that the enemy in your previous birth is born as your child to collect the wealth you have stolen from him or her. Now you are calling the ghosts and demons and making the child cursed in order to pacify your old enmity! The birthday celebration of your child should be later on and should be done by others and not by the parents and relatives. When this child grows and does some permanent benefit to the society, its birthday is celebrated by the society. Sri Rama Navami, Sri Krishna Ashtami, Sankara Jayanthi, Buddha Purnima etc., are performed by the society. You should not celebrate your own birthday, which will be like self-praise. Similarly you should not celebrate the birthday of your child which is like praising your own child. I do not understand why the parents celebrate the birthday of their child. What is the greatness of the child that is expressed in the childhood itself? Or, is it for the great act of producing a child? Even animals and birds are producing children. The parents should get the real happiness of the celebration of the birthday of their child by the society in future. If this angle does not exist, you can celebrate the birthday of the child in the angle of real worship to God and getting blessings from the real devotees. One of these two angles should be present in the birthday celebrations.
If these two defects are rectified, Hinduism will shine in the top most place in the world. Do not misunderstand Me immediately because I am born in the Hinduism. If a country is giving the noble prize to the greatest scholar in the world and in one year if it happens so that the greatest scholar happens to be the citizen of that country, should you reject the prize to him? Similarly, if I am in Hindu religion, should I not speak the merit of Hinduism also? I belong to every religion. I am Universal. I am taking birth in every religion and in every country. This time it happened so that I have taken birth in India in Hinduism. This does not mean that I am fanatic of India or Hinduism. The merit in Hinduism is the acceptance of any number of human incarnations according the requirement. The Christianity believes only in one human incarnation. The Islam does not believe any human incarnation. Buddhism keeps silent even about the very basic existence of God. Thus, in this aspect, the other religions should learn from Hinduism. At the same time Hinduism should learn from other religions about the impossibility of re-human birth and the performance of rituals in right direction. Our Universal Spirituality consists of all the merits of the all the religion and rejects all the defects of all the religions.
Capt Manmohan Kumar,
Shri Datta Swami's actually name is Anil Anthony and think himself Jesus avatar/Saint. Regularly, he tries to post above sermon and others on this forum. (ofcourse we delete them)
<!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
hehe here is Datta Swamis site, if anyone is interested and is in need of good humour you can go here:
http://www.universal-spirituality.org/
Sorry, wrong place to cut paste from missionary website
You get rid of cross, we'll get rid of idols. Happy?
Please come back when you have the maturity level to participate in this forum.
And come back with a human sounding name.
-Admin
The post by Acharya putting Balu's view point explains what i want to say.
Hinduism is an experience. It changes in every decade leave alone every century. To pin out hinduism as an old religion and want to create rules like 10 commandments is not hinduism.
Ramcharita manas redefined Ram for north indians when hindu faith was under lot of pressure. It was a departure from the ram of valmiki. RSS has redefined Ram since last 15 years and now i dont know that ram and am not even willing to know that ram, i will abjure him and he will no longer be my god if this image gains strength
Ganesh Utsav started from 1800's and has become so big in just last 100 years and may eventually fade away maybe in next 100 years to be replaced by someother form of worship.
Hinduism is the experience of Shri Shri Ravi Shankar. It is the experience of Valmiki and rishi vyas and vivekananda and shri aurobindo and meera bai and ashoka and buddha and adi shankaracharya and several such people who came to this land and shared there spiritualism with the people of this land. It is the experience of 1000's of great individuals from different rishi munis to present day spiritual leaders.
I want to keep it simple and my guru is my leader and will always remain so. My family is my guide and my faith is what keeps my desire burning towards hinduism.
I look at vedas as a source of knowledge and as a source to share the experiece of such great individuals and that is it. If i like something in that i will accept it and if i dont like something i will reject it.
Hinduism for me is the quest for truth and knowledge, anybody who want to connect hinduism with cow protection is not my hinduism.
There was a question what unites us. Exactly what unites us. Is it some 5000 year old experience or the dream of the nation which will bring food to everybody's plate and work for every home.
What unites me is the passion towards an india which will give its people potable water, health facilities, basic human dignity and a nation which gives respect to its fellow countrymen.
Religion definitely does not unite this nation. It never has and never will. If that would have been the case Nepal Srilanka and Thailand should also be an indian territory.
What endears me towards india is a hope of better future and not some glory of past or some experiential concept which can never be explained, has never been explained and is futile to even think that it will be explained.
Regarding the assertion that states like Orissa and Bihar are now being governed by BJP. I guess people want to believe in smokescreen. These states are not ruled by BJP, they are in coalition and BJP is the smaller partner in these states and mind you if not for Nitish Kumar BJP had nothing to get to power in Bihar and not for Naveen Patnaik, BJP could not stand in Orissa.
As regards Chattisgarh and Jharkand and MP the lesser said the better, because i know the ground realities over there. I guess the truth is getting harsher.
The jansangh did the same mistake in 70's they were a formidable opposition but due to some logic they just frittered it away and then it took 20 years for them to come back and i hope that this time the hiatus does not remain so long.
Shaurya writes
Quote:
Condescending or confronted with a reality that one has been alienated from? Hindutva in its broadest forms is Indian culture. By that definition even muslims and Christians are Hindus. I.E: A Hindu Muslim or a Indian Muslim. As far as I know, the RSS/BJP accept that definition. So in that sense yes, it is either Indianness or Hindutva or nothing else, is exactly what the RSS says. Do you have a problem with the Indian state reflecting more Indianness?
Sorry Shaurya I dont give you the right to define "indianness". Neither do i give RSS the right to define indianness. Very sweetly a fascist idea has been put into place where muslims are called hindu muslims and christians are called hindu christians and then certain parameters are being defined to put there hinduness or indianness to test. wow what a subterfuge.
I live in US for last 4 years and if some american come to me to americanise hinduism or become a christian hindu or a hindu christian(whatever it is) i guess i will be all too willing to do it and change my faith according to his or some organisation's believe of what are the so called american values or "amecianness".
An individual is an individual and he has all the rights to have whatever faith he has and he does not need to indianise it.
Ya I do have problems with people within islam who use there religion to create national security problem or terrorise hindus and have an agenda like to convert india into dar-ul-islam. I am completely in support to identifying and killing such bastards and so called root cause should be to actaully kill them. I do have problem when muslims just to hurt hindu sentiments will kill innocent cows and i will use every method on my hand to save cows just not because i revere cows but because it will be an assault on my faith.
But that is it. Not every muslim is like that and not every politician is like that.
I used to have huge hope from BJP, but unfortunately they did not measure up to what they say. Terrorist attacks within india were rampant during there rule. They did nothing to set pakistan straight and further there effort in general did nothing to actually make u feel that they are any different from the corrupt corrupt congress.
Then why should i go with BJP and not with congress and any tom dick or harry. If they are no different and cannot reign on the bureacracy or so called 50 years of socialist system then they are as much part of the congress system which i hate so much.
BJP does not even have any direction today, they are rudderless and direction less which so many captains driving the ship in so many directions, that now i dont even bother to keep track of what they are saying, doing or acting on.
Can two different organisation of the parivar agree on what is hindutva. Can BJP and RSS agree on hindutva, can Bajrang Dal and VHP agree on what is hindutva. RSS people rely on Supreme Court verdict of hindutva and hide behind that definition as if they really believe in that definition.
Means the whole discourse is so unconvincing that even if a person wants to accept it, he sees so much confusion, dishonesty and sometimes coverup that he gets disgusted and leaves it.
RSS says they are not for a theocracy, but there concept of hindu muslims and hindu christians sparks of the concept of theocracy though not in the western concept but certainly of imposing certain fundamentals and parameters that have to be followed by the residents of that nations to become indians. I dont accept such a concept. All law abiding citizens are indians irrespective of any prejudices. If they are not spreading terror or terrorising fellow countrymen then it is ok.
Abhishek
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->RSS says they are not for a theocracy, but there concept of hindu muslims and hindu christians sparks of the concept of theocracy though not in the western concept but certainly of imposing certain fundamentals and parameters that have to be followed by the residents of that nations to become indians.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Who is this nut ?
<!--emo&:omg--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/omg.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='omg.gif' /><!--endemo--> hehe, the nut says "The post by Acharya putting <b>Balu's view point explains what i want to say</b>." <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
He is one of the class of Hindus who have convinced themselves that they are proud to be Hindu. In reality they will come up with a hundred arguments to degrade Hindu parties, and say that RSS etc are imposing idealogy upon them, when in reality RSS wants to stop minorities from imposing *their* idealogy on Hindus.
He represents a new dhimmi class who thinks RSS is some "external" thing. RSS is Indian blood. Psecs want to think your veins really have coca-cola in them. People like the guy above know that coca-cola does not run in their veins, but they think there must be something wrong with blood too; there must be a *third* substance, they think.
I used to be like him. Takes some time to realize that when you cut yourself, the thing that comes out *is* blood, and you are a Hindu through and through, and RSS *is* you. Then the "external" feeling starts to disappear, and the "there must be something wrong with RSS" is seen as the bunkum that is actually is.
JMExperience... <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I think it's propaganda to say Xtians and Muslims are innocent minorities. They are funded by billions of dollars of foreign Arab or Western money. It's the Hindu who is the underdog, and will rise to restore the ancient glory of Vedic civilization as the Abhrahamic fascists fight and weaken each other.
<!--QuoteBegin-Shambhu+Oct 8 2006, 08:34 AM-->QUOTE(Shambhu @ Oct 8 2006, 08:34 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->He is one of the class of Hindus who have convinced themselves that they are proud to be Hindu. In reality they will come up with a hundred arguments to degrade Hindu parties, and say that RSS etc are imposing idealogy upon them, when in reality RSS wants to stop minorities from imposing *their* idealogy on Hindus.
He represents a new dhimmi class who thinks RSS is some "external" thing. RSS is Indian blood. Psecs want to think your veins really have coca-cola in them. People like the guy above know that coca-cola does not run in their veins, but they think there must be something wrong with blood too; there must be a *third* substance, they think.
I used to be like him. Takes some time to realize that when you cut yourself, the thing that comes out *is* blood, and you are a Hindu through and through, and RSS *is* you. Then the "external" feeling starts to disappear, and the "there must be something wrong with RSS" is seen as the bunkum that is actually is.
JMExperience... <!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[right][snapback]58740[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Shambhu+Oct 7 2006, 03:04 PM-->QUOTE(Shambhu @ Oct 7 2006, 03:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
I used to be like him. Takes some time to realize that when you cut yourself, the thing that comes out *is* blood, and you are a Hindu through and through, and RSS *is* you. Then the "external" feeling starts to disappear, and the "there must be something wrong with RSS" is seen as the bunkum that is actually is.
JMExperience... <!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[right][snapback]58740[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you tell us which part in the above writeup you connected with before.
My finding out what reality was started with seeing the defaced interiors of Hindu temples. That led to an inquiry into what really happened: the invasions, the hindu holocaust, the mulla-missionaries' disdain for anything hindu. And slowly I started seeing how India was being misled by (a) people who have an interests in misleading (b) people who themselves have been misled and have internalized it and are now rationalizing things away to fit their screwed-up concept of reality.
So after a time, I knew exactly who was on my side and who was trying to get me to grovel like a beggar and keep me humiliated. The Hindu organizations, which had previously been "those kooky religious fools", were now seen to be fighting to tell the truth, and I shed that "Hindu *but*" tag. Now I am a Hindu who will string you up by your ****s if you fart around about Hindus like Aruhdhati Roy/Romila Thapar does.
<!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I used to be like him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kyaa Shambhuji, even if you tried you wouldnt be able to be like him - not in 7 bhav. How can somebody who talks about hindu-xtians and hindu-muslims be thinking theocracy ? This 'intelligence' can only come from nuts and nuts are a different species.. <!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyways lets ignore this nut, he has got way more attention then he deserves.
Quote:Indians are racially same and hence do not have much
difference.
What makes you say that ?
Racial characteristics vary widely in India from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, and from Sindh(yes, I am including the historic aberration, Pakistan, within India ) to Imphal.
There is also a wide diversity of religious, culinary and other "cultural" traditions, even though there are some common strands.
"Multiculturalism" in Indian context is an essential fact.
Quote:
Indian language and religion has come from the same region and hence there is same root in history for a common heritage. The term diversity is a misnomer for Indians.
Is that so ?
Christianity and Islam of various sects, Zoroastrianism, Judaism are all contributors and part of society and culture in different parts of India.
Don't think of India as just as a uniform Hindu-Buddhist-Jain-Sikh culture.
Quote:Quote:
Indian language and religion has come from the same region and hence there is same root in history for a common heritage. The term diversity is a misnomer for Indians.
Is that so ?
Christianity and Islam of various sects, Zoroastrianism, Judaism are all contributors and part of society and culture in different parts of India.
Don't think of India as just as a uniform Hindu-Buddhist-Jain-Sikh culture.
All of the above mention by you have found a Indian way of expressing their religion and they have Indianized to become part of Indian culture. It has withstood the test of time. The followers have roots in India.
Just because some commie and psec talks about diversity BS does not mean it is true.
Quote:S.Valkan wrote:
Acharya wrote:
Indians are racially same and hence do not have much
difference.
What makes you say that ?
Racial characteristics vary widely in India from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, and from Sindh(yes, I am including the historic aberration, Pakistan, within India ) to Imphal.
There is also a wide diversity of religious, culinary and other "cultural" traditions, even though there are some common strands.
"Multiculturalism" in Indian context is an essential fact.
To figure out the origin of Indian races start reading this book
Quote:
"The real Eve"
by Stephen Oppenheimer
Available at Amazon
DNA shows that the non-african world was colonised by different waves of emigrants from India
He has analysed both maternal DNA ( mitochondrial ) and Paternal DNA, the Y chromosome
There is a genetic link indeed between Europe and north west India
However, the DNA shows the roots to lie in kashmir and Punjab
Next ALL non-African humans resided in India from 85k to 60k years ago
The root DNA for all non-africans is in India
Every single non-african human is traceable to India
which was the only inhabitable place outside africa till about 50k years ago
The out of Africa Adam, breaks up into 3 paternal lines
YAP, RPSY, and 89
Virtually 97% of Indians are descended from 89
The root for all 3 male lines are in India
South Asia is the first homeland for out of Africa humans
Oppenheimer's genetic map:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/
There is discussion HERE about the DNA and races
Quote:Acharya wrote:
There is a genetic link indeed between Europe and north west India
However, the DNA shows the roots to lie in kashmir and Punjab
Obviously, therefore, the DNA link of Kashmir and Punjab are different from those of Manipur and Kerala, correct ?
Quote:
Next ALL non-African humans resided in India from 85k to 60k years ago
The root DNA for all non-africans is in India
This "research" is not only debatable, but also speculative at best.
Researchers are still stumbling to create a whole line of DNA linkages for the genes of Outer Mongolians or Japanese Ainus or Peruvian Incas or Kiwi Maoris.
To trace them magically all to India is an intellectual travesty, the yearning of many notwithstanding.
Quote:S.Valkan wrote:
Acharya wrote:
There is a genetic link indeed between Europe and north west India
However, the DNA shows the roots to lie in kashmir and Punjab
Obviously, therefore, the DNA link of Kashmir and Punjab are different from those of Manipur and Kerala, correct ?
There are differences but roots are the same for the last 50k years. Hence if these people have been living for 50k years in the same region how much diversity should be talked about. There are larger continent countries who call themselves as one country with different races altogether and they dont talk about diverse country.
This thread is not for race origin can be taken up somewhere else.
It is OK if you dont believe in science
Quote:Acharya wrote:
There are differences but roots are the same for the last 50k years. Hence if these people have been living for 50k years in the same region how much diversity should be talked about.
Unfair statement.
We share same genetic roots with fish and frogs too, give or take a few million years.
And we have shared this planet with them for a long time. What diversity can there be between them and us ?
That's not how one approaches multiculturalism.
Racially, Indians are a heterogeneous mix.
For the last 10,000 or so years, India has undergone a slow transformation from a racial salad to a racial melting pot, much like what Europe and America are undergoing now.
In fact, most Indians are racial "mulattos", to borrow an American expression.
And Europe and America are slowly moving in that direction with inter-racial marriages etc.
So, that part of the equation is common.
However, the bigger fish to fry is the question of culture.
India developed islands of culture in different parts, depending on the population mix of the time, the language preference of the rulers of the region, the vegetables and spices growing there, the exposure to other religions and philosophies and literature, etc.
The common threads are undeniable. It is part of cultural diffusion.
But there is no denying that the islands were developing distinctly, and the beauty of Indian multiculturalism is the ability for each to flourish on its own merit, while a dynamic and vibrant fusion took place among the islands of culture.
Influence of the islands of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Zoroastrianism on the syncretic regional Hindu/Sikh/Jain/Buddhist cultures, and vice versa, in the Indian context is unmistakable.
This is what is also being tasted and tested in Europe ( and America ).
The more they learn from the successful Indian experiment rather than think on the lines of Huntington ( except in the case of Islamist hypocrisy ), the better it will be.
Quote:
It is OK if you dont believe in science
I see that you added this snide remark later.
I will not dignify it with anything but a terse response.
Let's just say that I understand ( and not just believe ) in science. You are free to believe in others, but I don't fall for Argumentum Ad Veracundiam.
Quote:The book which Acharya referred to is science, but don't let your assumptions get affected by reality....please carry on with your "DNA diversity" blather.
India is basically one culture (call it Hindu/ Indic/ Bharatiya whatever)... all regional diversity you mention fall within the ambit of 85% of the populace accepting this land as the land of their forefathers, the land of their cultural/ religious symbols (it is difficult to distinguish between the two in Indian thought), prophets/ saints and personas
The fact remains that all the other cultures do not have critical mass. The fact is that India was partioned when one such different culture reached this critical mass (aided and abetted by the colonial master, but that is a separate discussion)
if we are "multicultural" can you please explain the basis of Indian nationalism and the reason for India's existence as a nation? or do you think we owe our national identity to the areas colonized by the Raj (ie an accident of geography)?
Just to be very clear, the fact that India's existence as a nation owes it to cultural commonality does NOT mean that the state should accord it any special recognition in governance (ironically, Jinnah expressed that very well when Pubistan was founded).......... but let us not ignore the social and cultural reality
Quote:Acharya wrote:
All of the above mention by you have found a Indian way of expressing their religion and they have Indianized to become part of Indian culture. It has withstood the test of time.
Some people here get upset at this everytime, but please reconsider this statement.
Worshipping of Mithra and Varuna, or propitiating the Ashvins as a daily routine have not withstood the test of time.
And even the BrahmaVaivarta Purana declares "Ashvamedham Gavalambham(slaughtering cows) Sannyasa Pala Paitrikam Devarena Sutotpattim Kalau Pancha Vivarjayet".
Obviously, you have a serious misunderstanding of what has withstood time.
And definitely Cauliflower, cabbage, potatoes, tomatoes and green chillies were not part of the Vanaspati-Osadhi diet for centuries.
Even the Vedic Indian culture has evolved, and not only that,- various individual strains of that culture have evolved in individual local fashions.
Not only that, multiple cultures transplanted to India have thrived, and exchanged elements with this local Vedic undercurrent.
The Jews of Comorin and Calcutta have retained as much of the Hebrew traditions as feasible. They have not "Indianized" Judaism, but elements of Indian cultural mileu from their local surrounding has seeped in, some consciously and some unconsciously.
Same holds for Christians and Muslims of various shades.
That is the basis of the successful multiculturalism in India.
Quote:
The followers have roots in India.
Over a period of time, yes.
But many followers are Bactrian Greeks, Parthians, Scythians, Hiung-Nus, Kuei-shuangs, Siams ( in the early times ), Arabs, Turkmen, Mongols, Afghans, Uzbeks and displaced Persians and Jews ( medieval times ).
Although Europeans failed to integrate into India in colonial times, and even Anglo-Indians migrated to Australia and Canada post-independence, the "foreign" elements of these faiths and their distinct islands of culture developed for a few centuries can't be ignored.
Think the same way in Europe.
Indians and Chinese and others migrating there have brought their own cultures, and are slowly creating their own versions of it ( globalisation, ready access to "motherland" and so on may have introduced artificial slowdowns in this process ).
The Europeans are also being affected. UK already suggests that elements of Indian culinary items are now integral parts of British national culture.
Thinking the other way, we also have offshoots like ISKCON and other "Euro-American" islands of Indian culture, much like what Islam and Christianity produced in India ( Barelvis and Qadianis and so on ).
This is the multiculturalism that Europe is experiencing, slowly.
The success of it depends on how Europe learns from the Indian experiment of tolerance, and borrowing from each other, without hindering their individual growth.
This is what Europe has to learn from India,- letting a thousand flowers bloom, and creating a wonderful garden in unison.
Quote:asharma wrote:
The book which Acharya referred to is science, but don't let your assumptions get affected by reality....
Let's just say that I have a good understanding of the science of Y-haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA.
And all scientific research suggests that there are wide variations of Proto-Australoid, Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid genes among Indians of different areas.
What the book refers to is the situation where earliest human migration from Africa to the rest of the word was via the Arabian coastline and the Indian coastline some 80,000 years ago.
It does NOT say - and you are free to quote from the book if you wish - that the present Indian racial stock is the origin of human races outside Africa.
The present racial stock of India represents the various layers of ethnic movements by land and sea INTO India over the millenia.
And that does NOT prove the Aryan Invasion Theory, if that's what you fear.
I hope it clarifies doubts.
Quote:
India is basically one culture (call it Hindu/ Indic/ Bharatiya whatever)...
I am often misunderstood when I deal with this topic.
I'll take the advise of Ramana many moons ago, and desist from further discussion on this, except to say that "One culture" can be a metaphor for a rainbow.
It is "one" syncretic whole, but with many shades that share overlaps.
That is "multiculturalism" in the Indian context.
And that is the experiment Europe must learn to conduct successfully.
Quote:if that is your definition of "multiculturalism", then the equivalent of Indian multiculturalism already exists in Europe- the Catholics co-exist with the Protestants and the Calvinists and the Church of England etc etc etc... exactly similar to Vaishnavites vs Shivites vs Dwaitas vs Adwaits vs Arya Samajis vs Sanatanaists- differences but all grounded in a common bedrock and overarching framework
What India has NOT done, and where Europe is facing problems (and needs "lessons" if any), is "multiculturalism coexistence" of islam vs Christianity vs paganism or Islam vs Hinduism vs Christianity..... we cannot offer that to them either as we have not done it well..... if anything, the only lesson is that such fundamental differences in culture should not gain ciritical mass, and once that happens, geographical partition/ division becomes necessary- not exactly a lesson they would want to hear Laughing
As to your comments on the AIT, doesn't matter a whit to me other than academic interests- AIT or not is the past, and other than knowing the truth for truth's sake, it really does not affect our existence (and the Indian nation) going forward
asharma wrote:
if that is your definition of "multiculturalism", then the equivalent of Indian multiculturalism already exists in Europe- the Catholics co-exist with the Protestants and the Calvinists and the Church of England etc etc etc... exactly similar to Vaishnavites vs Shivites vs Dwaitas vs Adwaits vs Arya Samajis vs Sanatanaits- differences arising from a common bedrock
Incorrect.
Europe does have its own share of geographic multiculturalism,- that of different nation states.
But the experiment has been mostly confined to one local race, and one - let's say local ( Roman state-sponsored Catholicism and its offshoots ) religion.
Please remember that we are apparently only talking of colonial powers, and not Albania, Bosnia, Turkey or Sicily.
The experiment conducted in India were among various races ( some local, some foreign ) and of various religions ( some local, some foreign ).
The same experiments of converting racial salads to racial melting pots, and of marrying the flavours of various ethnic cultures with the local buillon are now happening on a slightly grander scale in Europe and America.
Europe has a lot to learn on how to make it successful, and not repeat Reconquistas and Inquisitions.
Quote:
What India has NOT done, and where Europe is facing problems (and needs "lessons" if any), is "multiculturalism coexistence" of islam vs Christianity vs paganism or Islam vs Hinduism vs Christianity..... we cannot offer that to them either
Doesn't Islamic culture, Zoroastrian/Parsee culture and Christian culture coexist - mostly peacefully - within the umbrella of "Indian culture" ?
Remember, we are talking of the "culture" aspect - food, clothing, literature, music - not the clashes between people with vested interests.
Quote:First, let us define what we mean by "multiculturalism". If you limit it to dress/ food, why, all the world already has shades of it (Britian and Chicken Tikka Masala!), what's so special about India?
If, however, it means co-existence of groups of people having fundamental differences in world view (eg, "my basis of existence requires me to deny some rights to people not of my group", or "I cannot work/interact with someone who does not believe that the earth is flat", "if someone tells me the The Red Sea did not part, I need to kill him", and IF such people constitute a significant portion of the populace, then the only lesson India offers is that they CANNOT coexist... division happens
Quote:
Doesn't Islamic culture, Zoroastrian/Parsee culture and Christian culture coexist - mostly peacefully - within the umbrella of "Indian culture" ?
I'd like to believe so, but unfortunately- there is ghettoization, albeit at different levels, depending upon your educational/income strata. The problems faced by Europe, are not so far off from what is being faced by several places in India.
Quote:
Europe has a lot to learn on how to make it successful, and not repeat Reconquistas and Inquisitions.
Why? Morals apart, thats the way Europe has been, and its worked for them- no Moorish revolt/insurgency in modern Spain for instance, only the PITA Basques. In the modern day, they cant do it with such clinical efficiency, but they'll find some way to repeat the process in todays charged times under the pretext of the WoT.
Quote:Quote:
I still see Muslims in India, even after Partition.
They DO coexist, and - more often than not - peacefully, don't they ?
And they DO enrich India's continuing experiment of a modern, syncretic culture, while retaining some individuality of their own.
That's the lesson India can offer.
How convenient of you to omit what I mentioned about critical mass. After partition Muslims constitute ~13% (below critical mass in my view), and already a demand for separate Mughalistan , comprising the eastern districts of UP and western ones of Bihar IIRC, has been raised... it is referenced in BR itself already.
Just for your benefit, let me repeat it again- all the lesson that India offers is that if fundamental differences exist amongst a critical mass of the populace, then these differences cannot be papered over.
There are a lot of nuances in that statement but that is the brutal reality of our past....... I don't know about the future, it may perhaps be different, but if Europe teaches us anything Laughing , it is that such differences cannot be papered over by economic prosperity
JCage wrote:
I'd like to believe so, but unfortunately- there is ghettoization, albeit at different levels, depending upon your educational/income strata. The problems faced by Europe, are not so far off from what is being faced by several places in India.
The difference is Europe ( UK excepted ) has had no intentions of imbibing the cultural inputs of its migrants, and expected the migrants to simply assimilate lock, stock and barrel while the migrants ( Muslims especially ) resist assimilating European cultural inputs and want to retain their own pristine purity.
That's not how it happened, or happens, in India.
There is no pressure ( until recently ) to "Indianize, or else...".
But there is an inescapable Indianization, and cross-cultural diffusion.
And that's the lesson India can offer.
Quote:
Why? Morals apart, thats the way Europe has been, and its worked for them- no Moorish revolt/insurgency in modern Spain for instance.
The problem is that it worked for them in an era where ethnic conflict and violence was the norm, and Europe was barbaric.
There has been no such "first contact" for centuries after the Reconquista.
Now, the immigrants pose a new headache for a different Europe, - a Europe that is less sectarian, more welcoming and has had ( until the Islamist violence) open minds about possibilities.
Provided there is no convulsions to the gut, and there is a willingness to accommodate other races and cultures ( NOT just Islamic, but Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, African, Slavic), the lesson that Europe can borrow can only come from India.
Quote:asharma wrote:
How convenient of you to omit what I mentioned about critical mass.
I omitted it, because you are hung up on political Islam.
It took Muslims 1000 years to reach critical mass in India.
When do you suppose the critical mass would be reached in Europe ?
Quote:
Just for your benefit, let me repeat it again- all the lesson that India offers is that if fundamental differences exist amongst a critical mass of the populace, then these differences cannot be papered over.
This argument of yours is fallacious.
Hindus and Buddhists in Sri Lanka are fighting to separate, despite there being NO fundamental difference in worldview.
It all depends on perceived grievances of a section of the population.
This is not the correct thread to discuss the nuances of Partition, and so I'll desist.
asharma wrote:
As to your comments on the AIT, doesn't matter a whit to me other than academic interests- AIT or not is the past, and other than knowing the truth for truth's sake, it really does not affect our existence (and the Indian nation) going forward
It does matter in the sense that the entire premise of the JNU historians is that there is no native culture callled Indian culture. It started with the AIT (Invading Aryans bringing vedic culture into India and the assertion of the Harrappan culture being distiinct from the Aryan vedic culture, the division of the the Aryan north and the Dravidian southe...etc). From AIT to proceed to describe the myriads of other invasions into India such as Valkan describes:
Quote:
Bactrian Greeks, Parthians, Scythians, Hiung-Nus, Kuei-shuangs, Siams ( in the early times ), Arabs, Turkmen, Mongols, Afghans, Uzbeks and displaced Persians and Jews ( medieval times ).
The Aryan invasion theory is not a mere academic matter, of concern only to historians. In the colonial era the British used it to divide India along north-south, Aryan-Dravidian lines, an interpretation various south Indian politicians have taken up as the cornerstone for their political projection of Dravidian identity. The Aryan invasion theory is the basis of the Marxist critique of Indian history where caste struggle takes the place of class struggle with the so-called pre-Aryan indigenous peoples turned into the oppressed masses and the invading Aryans turned into the oppressors, the corrupt ruling elite. Christian and Islamic missionaries have used the theory to denigrate the Hindu religion as a product of barbaric invaders and promote their efforts to convert Hindus. Every sort of foreign ideology has employed it to try to deny India any real indigenous civilization so that the idea of the rule of foreign governments or ideas becomes acceptable. Even today it is not uncommon to see this theory appearng in Indian newspapers to uphold modern, generally Marxist or anti-Hindu political views. From it comes the idea that there is really no cohesive Indian identity or Hindu religion but merely a collection of the various peoples and cultures who have come to the subcontinent, generally from the outside. Therefore a reexamination of this issue is perhaps the most vital intellectual concern for India today.
E.g: Do people know who the Scythians really were, did they really invade India, what was the lasting impact, where is the evidence? How good is that evidence? Are their alternatve view? What are they? Do these alternate views make sense?
Quote:JCage wrote:
I'd like to believe so, but unfortunately- there is ghettoization, albeit at different levels, depending upon your educational/income strata. The problems faced by Europe, are not so far off from what is being faced by several places in India.
Quote:
The difference is Europe ( UK excepted ) has had no intentions of imbibing the cultural inputs of its migrants, and expected the migrants to simply assimilate lock, stock and barrel while the migrants ( Muslims especially ) resist assimilating European cultural inputs and want to retain their own pristine purity.
That's not how it happened, or happens, in India.
There is no pressure ( until recently ) to "Indianize, or else...".
But there is an inescapable Indianization, and cross-cultural diffusion.
And that's the lesson India can offer.
SV, thats not exactly correct. A lot of the pressure to "Indianize or else.." did come from groups such as the Sikhs and Marathas, the former especially, which is why they are (for eg) remembered with such hatred in the land of the pure. Indianize, in the context, referring to more even handed behaviour when coexisting with other non Muslim cultures, and no longer retaining the ability to force their way on dhimmis, to even harsher edicts which were never possible earlier (eg the Sikh edict banning cow slaughter in Kashmir).
The other issue is that prior to that, the shoe was on the other foot, since political power was in the Muslims hands, and the ulema and the nobles made full use of it for coercion.
Some educated Muslims do manage to straddle both worlds, even rarer birds like Kalam manage to rise even beyond that, but there is no doubt that there is a repetitive strain in Islam which insists that its purity be maintained when its in contact with those that dont follow exactly what it says. Its no surprise that the most virulent Islamists are usually from those regions which are in contact with other cultures- eg, the Indian subcontinent, or now even Britainistan and Europe. This is something which will cause conflict eternal.
Quote:
Why? Morals apart, thats the way Europe has been, and its worked for them- no Moorish revolt/insurgency in modern Spain for instance.
Quote:
The problem is that it worked for them in an era where ethnic conflict and violence was the norm, and Europe was barbaric.
There has been no such "first contact" for centuries after the Reconquista.
Now, the immigrants pose a new headache for a different Europe, - a Europe that is less sectarian, more welcoming and has had ( until the Islamist violence) open minds about possibilities.
Provided there is no convulsions to the gut, and there is a willingness to accommodate other races and cultures ( NOT just Islamic, but Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, African, Slavic), the lesson that Europe can borrow can only come from India.
But this is under the assumption that they want to take the civilized, moral high ground/ co-existence way out rather than the time honored tactic of survival of the fittest.
First, there is a fundamental difference between Europe and India. India's own culture- which stems from Hinduism, is inclusive and for the most peaceful- its by its very nature, status quoist, we can quibble over when it happened but it did- a Gandhi could hence relate in a religious, and social manner to a vast majority of India and push his pranaami heritage to a wider audience. But Europe/ the west has been much more in the "survival of the fittest"/"law of the jungle" line.
Take Downers comments on Australian muslims, the Dutch reaction after Van Goghs murder (and these folks were considered to be the most liberal of all!), or even the present UK Govt's several top functionaries about how UK muslims better shape up. The writing is on the wall, the average Muslim cannot hope to carve out his own idyllic shariah run enclave in Europe, the average population will react strongly. All these days, the UK and even France and many other countries, tried to adopt a true policy of multi-culturalism, what you are seeing are the chinks in the edifice, and this may well collapse into the Europe of old.
What I am pointing out is that "the Indian experience" will only work in Europe, if they choose to adopt it- if they dont, and persist with a modern day reconquista, thats that. Already immigration laws are tightening up, the Dutch are insisting that all immigrants now go through and fully agree with Dutch culture, more and more rightwing politicians are coming to power- imho, it shows which way the wind is blowing. The modern tools are different, and subtly so, but these tools will provoke more violence - eg lack of jobs/ subtle discrimination against French muslims lead to the banlieue riots, and then there are even more calls for harsher measures.
Quote:Acharya wrote:
If what Europe knows about India resembles what it claims it knows about the caste system, what exactly does Europe know about India or her culture? Not very much, I am afraid.
What exactly is meant by "Europe" here ?
People in Europe can be classified into several categories :
1) People who are not the least interested about India ( other than an occasional dine-in at a "tandoori" or "curry" restaurant ), or who are familiar with an image of India as a mystical third world place of tropical forests, tigers, elephants, beggars, squalor, dark mischievous native Hindoos that practice idolatry and eat monkey brains.
3) People who are familiar with the tourism side of India and have visited Rajasthan, Goa, Kerala and a few other "exotic" locations in the vicinity like Ceylon, Nepal and Maldives.
4) People who are familiar with the business side of India, importing mainly consumer leather goods and textiles, and exporting value-added manufacturing goods. This includes recent exposure to IT and offshored BPO services.
5) People who are vaguely familiar with the "spiritual" side of India through the agencies of ISKCON, Joseph Campbell shows, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Deepak Chopra and other such harbingers of Indian spiritual kedgeree.
6) Professional Indologists, whose business it is to conjure wild theories and gain a Ph.D on how the elephant head of Ganesha signifies the various parts of the human pudendum.
7) People like John Woodroffe, who have done excellent research on much maligned elements of Indian "culture", and left authoritative discourses for the benefit of both revivalists in India and genuine sympathisers in Europe.
The "knowledge" of one segment need not be in sync with those of the others.
Quote:
One means something like this: Indians have to learn a particular way of going-about with the world from the European culture. That is, one believes that this way of going-about is the unique contribution of the European culture, something that is absent in other cultures.
A wonderful articulation.
However, the critical element that is missing in this is the fact that where Europe succeeded uniquely - and other cultures didn't - was in presenting a coherent system of governance, law, peoples' mandate and fundamental rights - that can be adapted by various cultures, without a loss of identity.
What India learned from Europe was implementation of a local adaptation of this versatile system.
The fact that India succeeds in maintaining "unity in diversity" for over 1 billion people of various ethnic, cultural and political mindset is directly attributable to the strength of this model.
Quote:
Let us now reverse the question: what has Europe to learn from India? In all the thirty years I have spent in Europe and in all the thousands of books I have probably read, I have not come across a satisfactory answer.
It is unfortunate that he hasn't found an answer.
Europe already has, to some extent, in its attempt at "multiculturalism", based on an unforced synthesis of individuality and universality.
Not "secularism", mind you, but "multiculturalism" in the Indian mode - a unique syncretic approach.
Although the equation is somewhat being garbled - at the present juncture because of Islamist intransigence, and overall because of the vast undercurrent of racial superiority in the minds of many an otherwise-decent European - the chances are that Europe is learning and adapting the universal multicultural tendencies and values of India and her unique civilisation in its own way.
S.Valkan wrote:
Acharya wrote:
If what Europe knows about India resembles what it claims it knows about the caste system, what exactly does Europe know about India or her culture? Not very much, I am afraid.
What exactly is meant by "Europe" here ?
The Only Europeans who know Indians are the colonizing Europe. They are Britain, French, Dutch, Portuguese. They have been in India for the last 500 years. Since they are creating a European identity he has used the term Europe.
S.Valkan wrote:
Quote:
Let us now reverse the question: what has Europe to learn from India? In all the thirty years I have spent in Europe and in all the thousands of books I have probably read, I have not come across a satisfactory answer.
It is unfortunate that he hasn't found an answer.
Europe already has, to some extent, in its attempt at "multiculturalism", based on an unforced synthesis of individuality and universality.
Not "secularism", mind you, but "multiculturalism" in the Indian mode - a unique syncretic approach.
That word is BS.
Indians are racially same and hence do not have much difference. Indian language and religion has come from the same region and hence there is same root in history for a common heritage. The term diversity is a misnomer for Indians.
Why did this guy leave out Marxism, I am sure it also enriched India in it's own perverse way along with other imperialist ideologies like Islam and Christianity.
Every dickhead that came and ruled this land was not accepted as a legitimate ruler by the people, the Mughals were a bunch of foreign bastards as much as the British were.
You need to separate out actual Brahmin behavior as described by Harish from the "Hypothetical Brahmin" who was typecast in a particular (and hateful) mold by various agents of history. It is that mold that is is lampooned and criticized by the Pakis and that is the very model that was held up as reprehensible in Indian society by invaders who sought change.
It seems to me that Pakis the RAPE (the elite) succeeded in the trick of casting themselves in that mold while dissociating themselves from caste, claiming that they were Muslims. They (Pakis) have in my opinion, ended up mirroring every hateful characteristic applied to the hypothetical Brahmin, and have simultaneously to portray themselves as saviours of all Indians, especially Muslims, from this hateful hypothetical Brahmin. "See these Hindu Brahmin bastards? Defeat them. Only Muslims can be Brahmin bastards" - if you get what I mean.
It would be useful in this connection to list out the characteristics of the cliched archetypal hypothetical Brahmin as seen by the Packee, and then see how closely PAKRAPE behavior actually mirrors that. It is almost as if Pakis are saying "If this is Brahminical behavior - it is good to treat all non Muslims this way, and let us Muslims be the new Brahmins".
-------------------------------------------
When Islam came to the Indian subcontinent, it faced instititutional resistance thanks to the varna system, which was not the case when it faced other social-religious civilizations, such as the Indo-Buddhist one. I those, quickly disposing of the bald priests- the monks, and taking care of the Hindu ruler and his cohorts (Dahir) was enough to knock the system out of kilter.
But in the case of Hinduism- here you have a system, wherein the Brahmin acted as a repository of religious and cultural knowledge, and the Kshatriya picked up weapons repeatedly to fight against the spread of Islam. Therein started the demonization. If the Brahmin "goes" from the setup, who will quote scriptures or interpretation therein to insist that conversion is a grave sin? Which is why, in every pogrom, the Brahmins would be the first to be targeted- whether it was the Delhi Sultanates or Aurangzeb offering a bounty for every hairpiece or the like. In the meanwhile, Hindu civilization as a whole, under repeated knocks, became insular. All the taboos against xyz doing this, that became reinforced.<b>
This was but to be expected when a civilization is under threat, as conservativism and survival become the keywords.</b> Come the British, and while religious repression was significantly reduced vis a vis the Muslim rulers and the like, again it became a conflict between Missionaries and the Hindu religious system. In the modern era, apart from the above- you have the Communists- again, who by applying an European concept of the class system and feudalism to India, equated Brahmins and the kshatriyas to the bloodsuckers, and then of course the hated money lenders- the banias who supported this gross injustice.
This is not to deny that severe social ills have been caused by the mutated caste system in India, for which many brahmins have also been part of the problem. But India as a country, as a culture, as a people, has been far too diverse for only one group of people or community to exert all this- in fact, north to south, even the role of communities changes, as you are undoubtedly aware. <b>It is just that its historically useful to use one community as a sticking point, especially when it neither has the numbers or political space to back it up. </b>
But to get back to your hypothetical brahmin, the reason the Pakistanis have such hatred against the Brahmins is because they are again cast in the Islamic role- ie as mullahs and the gatekeepers of Hinduism. <span style='color:red'>If the brahmins were to be removed, the oppressed lower castes would automatically move towards the lofty ideals of Islam. This world view (eg. They bemoan the sanskritization of OBCs and SC/ST's without even realizing that this very thing proves how fluid the Hindu religious ethos can be, and that its their right to do so, if they choose. ), has influenced them prior to the creation of Pakistan, and I daresay one will find many Indian Islamists and communists who also hold to a very similar view (which I have seen in my own personal experience).</span>
Please see Chaudhry Rehmat Alie's concept of Dinia for example- it is the perfect example of an Islamist worldview and intellectual zeal, which continues to reappear. The presence of kaffirs and polytheists and that too flourishing, is a grave offence to Islamists, and they cannot reconcile to its existence.
Are the Brahmins the only ones demonized- definitely not- because we have the banias. Again, recent history comes into play. The business community dominated what is today Pakistan, and memories of the rich, prosperous "blood sucking" lalas die hard. The Kshatriyas are not similarly demonized, because many Pakistans firmly believe in their caste identity- and what better way then to adopt the most glamorous one, that too of the "Rajputs". So every Pakistani Punjabi Muslim of note will claim that he is a "Rajput". But never a converted Lala or Brahmin- these are too effete in the Islamist worldview, their's after all, is the belief of conquerors!
From a Blog
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Suggestions for Hindu Renaissance </b>
We see various threads in various communities about topics that Hinduism is in danger; Hinduism is facing threats from other religions etc etc. While they may be right, the question which naturally comes to our minds is "what can we do for Hindu Renaissance"
The following are my 2 cents on that subject. Others are welcome to add. Before I go into the subject, there are three points which are to be kept in mind.
<b>Point 1:</b> Hinduism holds that all paths lead to the same goal. Hence, we accept all other forms of worship apart from our own. We accept the Christian way of worship and also the Muslim way of worship. We not just tolerate, but accept them as valid... for the so-called tolerance is just self-righteous attitude- "I am right, you are wrong, but I am still 'tolerating' you". Thatâs not our attitude.
Our problem with other religions is their dogmatic attitude. We donât have problem with the way Christians worship their god; we have problem when they dogmatically say that their path alone is true and all other paths are wrong. We have problem when they hurl abuses at us and our gods and call them satanic. We donât have problem if they call Christianity a true religion, but we have problems when they say Christianity is the ONLY true religion. We have problem when they call Hinduism a false religion and ask people to convert and adopt various means like force and fraud to do it. The same is the case with Muslims.
<b>Point 2:</b> The battle these days is not between two separately standing groups, but between ideologies. The battle now is in the minds of the people.
Many of the so-called-intellectuals (read commies) do not behave anti-Hindu coz they consciously think "ok letâs be anti-Hindu", but coz many really feel that they are on the right side.
The media does not consciously think "ok letâs portray Hindus badly"- they really think that their position is right. So is the case with other institutions in India.
In theory, they are all good institutions.. the problem is in the direction, not in the motives. Same is the case with many p-seculars.
<b>Hence what we have to recognize is that the battle now is in the minds.</b> Things like "I will kick the p-secs", "the media is a demon" etc etc will not help.
Psychological-warfare is the reality today (note: I said psychological, not mere intellectual)
<b>Point 3:</b> The main emphasis of my points is "what we can do", not what we demand others to do.
I can demand that Muslims and Xtians should cease to be dogmatism, I can demand that govt stop its minority appeasement policies... I can demand and demand lot more. But how many of them are going to be accepted? So my focus here is not what we can demand from others, but what we can do in that direction. If others too accept some of the demands, well and good. But we cannot sit and wait for them to do so. We have to act.
<b>Now coming to the points:</b>
<b>1. Character:</b> This is of foremost importance. Though it is universally lacking, it is no justification for us. Nothing can be done by people who lack personal character. Hindus may cry foul about others, but until we conduct ourselves in a righteous manner, nobody can help us. Also, people judge a religion by its followers- if its followers are lacking in character, then so will be the opinion about the religion. Hindus are the brand ambassadors of Hinduism.
<b>2. Strength:</b> Hindus badly lack this. Strength here means Physical, Intellectual and spiritual strength. Why is an ordinary Hindu a coward and justifies his cowardness with various theories?
The first part is physical strength. We should never ignore the importance of having a strong body. We lack intellectual strength also. We simply feel that we have so many problems, but do not have the strength to tackle them ourselves. We just wait for some person to come and do all our work. One more Sankaracharya, one more Vivekananda. But what can even they do, if we do not have the strength enough to preserve what we have.
<b>3. Pride:</b> Hindus have been thought from day one in the schools that their forefathers were bunch of tribals; that their religion does not contain anything except some out dated practices and that their history is just a chronology of defeats. Hindus do not take pride in calling themselves Hindus. They are not even aware of the great philosophical and literary works in Hinduism. They just blindly ridicule everything in Hinduism. So, we have to first create pride among Hindus about Hinduism. We may talk and talk on how to protect Hinduism, but all that will be futile until we tell people why we have to protect Hinduism... what is there in it that is worthy of protection. Once we convince people of that and in taking pride about being Hindus, then the rest wil automatically follow.
<b>4. Unity:</b> The slavish mentality is that if one person tries to climb up, the rest try their best to bring him down. We should rather create unity among the Hindus. We should cease to act as an individual or as a member of a caste or a region, but acts as part of the Hindu society.
And this is not going to come if we sit and shout "come- unity, come- unity"... it comes by acting so. "You may not recognize that you are united, but still I will stay united with you; even if you are not helping me, I will still help you"- must be our attitude.
<b>5. Redundant Practices:</b> There are some old redundant practices like: Caste, Child marriages. Every effort should be made to remove these discriminations. Protecting Hinduism does not just mean protecting it from "others", but also from selfish and bigoted Hindus also.
<b>6. Economy:</b> Money always played and is going to play an important role in the society. You cannot teach the intricacies of the Upanishads to a hungry stomach. So, every Hindu should either directly contribute to the less privileged Hindus or contribute it to some good Hindu organizations. It is a good habit to fix that one will donate this much % of his/her salary to such causes and do so.
<b>7. Service:</b> One should always try to serve the less privileged in what ever means possible to them. Thanks to the NRI culture, people started thinking that they are giving some money and that will take of the service. But we have to remember that the Hindu society does not need our money, but our heart and soul- our services. Money is important, but not the most important. I will say a 30mins of service activity is more worthy than thousands of rs.
And it is two-sided- not just the served, but the person who did the service also transforms himself. It helps in getting a first hand feel and understanding of the real issues. People sitting in a/c rooms and theoretically talking about solutions and giving cheques are no help. What is wanted is a heart that feels. I understand it is very difficult for many; but try to do atleast something, no matter how little it is.
<b>8. Re-conversions:</b> As someone said, there are only two types of religious groups in India: Hindus and ex-Hindus. We should remove the anathema against reconversions and actively reconvert the willing. I am not talking about this from mere numbers point of view. Rather it has the ability to transform the outlook of Hindus from a slavish mentality trying to protect itself and an heroic mentality ready to conquer new frontiers.
Instead of passivity, activity; for the standard of weakness, the standard of strength; in the place of a steadily-yielding defense, the ringing cheer of the invading host. Merely to change the attitude in this way is to accomplish a revolution.
Anyhow, this must be accompanied by even more important thing: <b>Hinduising the Hindus.</b>
<b>9. Awareness</b>: Many Hindus are not even aware of the threats against Hinduism. Simply if a missionary comes in a good dress and speaks in a nice language, they fall for him; some even donate some money for them thinking that they will be using it for service purposes. But hardly do they know that this very money is used to convert some of the Hindus, and then make them stand against Hindus. Awareness is power, and for this all possible means should be explored.
Very very rarely do I come across a Hindu who understands mass psychology. There are people who really feel for the Hindu cause, but they sometimes blabber pathetically leading to the complete opposite of the desired. As I said earlier, the war now is in at the psychological level, hence it is very important to understand how it works and use it properly.
I feel that these are some things we need to concentrate upon. These may not stop the next terrorist from bombing another Indian city; these may not stop the next innocent Hindu falling for the missionary tricks and converting; these may not stop the next bill legalizing illegal immigrants into Assam from being passed.
<b>But they can create a Hindu society which can archive all of them and much much more in the future... naah they can even create muslims and xtians who feel it is "cool" to be a Hindu.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Link: http://ssksurya.blogspot.com/
How many of you vince when you see the Kumbha Melas pictures splashed by the news channels? Or at the character in Kasam Se with the over sized tilak? All that is due to social engineering.
And
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Why Bharat is a Nation
This standard commie crap that India is nothing but a bunch of warring kingdoms unified by British etc etc etc has wide ranging implications. What unfortunate turn of events has come over India. Indians have to prove to fellow-Indians and others that India is indeed a nation. âIntellectual reasonsâ are needed for a truth which is simply obvious if you close your eyes and ask your heart.
Let it be. That should not discourage us from trying to prove the same.
Before I go into the subject, I will like to add one more word- people might have noticed that I have used the word Bharat and not India. This is to avoid any confusion between the present State of India and the historical India with the land presently called Pakistan included. Hence, I am using the word Bharat due to this reason.
Now coming to the topic⦠what is a Nation. The defining perspectives of nationhood are typically multidimensional. A nation is not just a geographic area separated from the world by internationally accepted boundary lines; a nation primarily exists in the minds of its citizens. Hence, in one sense, the defining perspectives make a nation.
Most of the confusion in this regard owes its origin to some of the misconceptions spread by the British. They did not find any merit in giving the Indian nation more than two hundred years of existence. In order to ensure their own dominance, they strongly asserted that there has never been an Indian nation before the nineteenth century. Their contention was that there was only a zone called India consisting of small kingdoms ruled by different dynasties. According to them the concept of unified Indian nation emerged as a result of the enlightenment brought about by western education among the elite.
All this confusion can be overcome by first understanding the difference between Nation with State and what patriotism means.
Why should one be even patriotic at all? Is it because we just happen to be born in this country by some random turn of events not in my control (assuming one does not believe in Karma and Reincarnation).. is it because some guys sitting in delhi made a line on maps and then told us that this part is India, this part is Pakistan etc etc and that they have to be loyal to it?
No, I donât think that can be the case. If that is to be true, then nationalism is just jingoism. A nation is not a mere geographical or political entity. It is rather the name given to the collective consciousness of a group of people bound together by common set of ideals etc. Though these ideals cannot be tooo specific (else there is nothing in common) these cannot be at the same time too vague and hence absurd. (like âhumanityâ, âmankindâ)
Just like a unit of army may have a particular goal to be archived which it does thinking and working as a group, nation is a group of people who are brought together by common ideals, aims and easy of getting together. This may be helped by factors like common history, common culture, common geography etc etc.
The bottom line is the individual ceases to act as an individual and acts as a part of the group (this need not be seen as a negation of citizenâs individuality. Its just a realization that individual interests too are best served by acting together).
Patriotism is the name given to the responsibility towards the web called Nation of which is also a part.
Thought a Nation is set of individuals bound together by a common ideal, they need a agent through which their collective aspirations are given shape. Thus comes the idea of State. A State is a political set up which acts on behalf of the (majority) individuals (note the difference between a Nation and a State)
The state is the means a nation chooses to give certain amount of freedom to the individual but enforces some minimum solidarity towards the Nation.
Now having established the difference between a Nation and a State and that a Nation is much much more than mere political entity, lets come back to the topic.
Cultural Oneness:
Are there are pointers which can prove that indeed such collective consciousness was present among the people of Bharat? Is the idea of Bharat a mere British contribution of was there earlier? Yes it was.
The idea of India, as Bharatavarsha or Aryavrata, appears to have been alive for thousands of years in our stories, thousands of years before there was an America or a Great Britain or a Mexico or France.
From the Manusmriti, we learn of the land of Aryavrata stretching from the Himalayas and Vindhyas all the way to the eastern and western oceans. Without the idea of Bharata, there could have been no epic called the Maha-Bharata that engaged kings throughout this land of Bharata. The story of Mahabharata shows a remarkable degree of pan-Indian context and inter-relationships, from Gandhari, the wife of Drithrashtra who came from Gandhara, (spelled as Kandahar in present-day Afghanistan), Draupadi from Panchala (present day Jammu and Kashmir), all the way to Arjun meeting and marrying the Naga princess Uloopi on a visit to Manipur in the east (from where he gets the `Mani' or Gem). Interestingly, Arjuna is said to have gone on a pilgrimage to the holy places of the east when this happens, showing the current North-East was very much linked in this. Finally, Krishna himself is from Mathura and Vrindavana (in UP) though his kingdom itself is in Dwarka (Gujarat).
Similarly, the story of Ramayana draws the north-south linkage from Ayodhya all the way down to Rameshwaram, at the tip of which is finally the land of Lanka. Note that it is not, for this particular thesis, important that the stories are historically accurate.
What we are interested in rather is whether the idea of India or Bharatavarsha or Aryavrata as a culturally linked entity existed in the minds of the story-tellers and ultimately in the minds of the people to whom these stories were sacred. And these stories were then taken and told and retold in all the languages of the people of this great civilization, till the stories themselves established a linkage among us and to the sacred geography they celebrated. This sacred geography is what makes northerners flock to Tirupati and southerners to the Kumbha Mela.
And the diffusion of these common ideas was certainly not only from the north to south. The great Bhakti movement started in the 6th and 7th centuries AD had its roots in the south in the Tamil and Kannada languages. Even while the boundaries of kingdoms changed, enormous cultural and religious unity continued to take place across India. It started off with the Alvars and the Nayanars (Tamil, 7th to 10th century AD), Kamban (Tamil, 11th century), Basava (Kannada, 12th century) and moved on to Chaitanya Mahaprabu (Bengali, 15th century), Ramananda (15th century, born in Allahabad of south India parentage, guru of Kabir, 15th century), Raskhan (16th century), Surdas (Braj, 16th century), Mirabia (Rajasthan, 16th century), Tulsidas (Avadhi, 16th century), Nanak (Punjabi, 16th century) and Tukaram (Marathi, 17th century), among the many. All these together weaved a garland across the land that spoke again of our common truths, our common cultural heritage.
The Bhakti movement retold our ancient stories in the language of the common people, in Marathi and Bengali, in Avadhi (present day UP) and Bhojpuri (present day Bihar), in Gujarati and Punjabi and in Rajasthani. We can marvel at the cultural unity in India, where while the Bhakti poets initiated the great movement for devotion to Shiva in the south, the erudite philosophy of Kashmir Shaivism was being developed coevally in the north.
Or that Kamban in the south was the first poet to take the story of Rama to the major regional languages, and Tulsidas, much closer to Ayodhya, came centuries later. Or that the great Krishna bhakta Chaitanya was celebrating his devotion to the King of Dwarka in Bengal while Tukaram sang praises of Lord Vithal in the west. An immense body of pan-Indian worship revolved around the triad of Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti in their various forms â whether as Rama, Krishna, Sri Venkateshwara, Sri Dakshinamurti, Jagdamba, Durga Mata or Kali. These common stories were told and retold without the mandate of any central church and seeped through the pores of the land of Bharata, forging a shared bond, unlike any other seen on the planet.
It was this idea of civilizational unity and sacred geography of India that inspired Shankaracharya to not only enunciate the mysteries of the Vedanta but to go around setting up mathas circumscribing the land of India in a large diamond shape. While sage Agasthya crossed the Vindhya and came down south, Shankracharya was born in the village of Kalady in Kerala and traveled in the opposite direction for the establishment of dharma. If this land was not linked in philosophical and cultural exchanges, and there was no notion of a unified nation, why then did Shankracharya embark on his countrywide digvijay yatra? What prompted him to establish centers spreading light for the four quadrants of this land â Dwarka in the west (in Gujarat), Puri in the east (in Orissa), Shringeri in the south (Karnataka) and Badrinath (Uttaranchal) in the north? He is then said to have gone to Srinagar (the abode of `Sri' or the Shakti) in Kashmir, which still celebrates this in the name of Shankaracharya Hill. What better demonstration that the idea of the cultural unity of the land was alive more than a thousand years ago?
And yet, these stories are not taught to us in our schools in India. We learn instead, in our schools, that the British created India and gave us a link language, as if we were not talking to each other for thousands of years, traveling, telling and retelling stories before the British came. How else did these ideas travel so rapidly through the landmass of India, and how did Shankracharya circumscribe India, debating, talking and setting up institutions all within his short lifespan of 32 years?
These ideas of our unity have permeated all our diverse darshanas. We have talked about Bhakti and Vedanta and the epics of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. But this idea of unity was not limited to particular schools. They were equally present in the tantric schools that exerted a tremendous influence on popular worship. Thus we have the legend of Shakti, whose body was carried by Shiva and cut up by Vishnu, landing in 51 places throughout the landmass of India that are now the site of the Shakti Peetham temples. The body of Shakti, or so the story goes, fell all the way from Neelayadakshi Kovil in Tamil Nadu to Vaishno Devi in Jammu, from Pavagadh in Gujarat to the Kamakshi temple in Assam and 47 other places.
Why would the story conceive of these pieces of Shakti sanctifying and falling precisely all over the landmass of India, rather than all of them falling in Tamil Nadu or Assam or Himachal (or alternately, Yunan (Greece) or China, or some supposed `Aryan homeland' in Central Asia) unless someone had a conception of the unity of the land and civilization of Bharatavarsha? Whether these stories are actual or symbolic, represent real events or myths, it is clear from them that the idea of India existed in the minds of those that told these stories and those that listened.
Together, all these stories wove and bound us together, along with migration, marriages and exchange of ideas into a culture unique in the story of mankind. A nation that was uniquely bound together in myriads of ways, yet not cast into a mono-conceptual homogeneity of language, worship, belief or practice by the diktat of a centralized church, intolerant of diversity.
If the concept of India did not exist earlier, why did the British, when they landed in Bengal, form the East India Company and not East Bengal company- how is it possible unless the conception of the land of India (a term derived from the original Hind) was shared by the natives and the British? They used this name much before they had managed to politically hold sway over much of India, and before they educated us that no India existed before their arrival. Why would the Portuguese celebrate the discovery of a sea-route to India when Vasco de Gama had landed in Calicut in the south, if India was a creation of the British Empire?
Ethnic/Civilizational Oneness:
The other pet argument people like to give is that India is a conglomeration of different set of invaders coming and settling here in different points of time.
The recent gene studies on the DNA samples of the people of India suggest the complete opposite. See tis research paper for example:
The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations
The American Journal of Human Genetics
Two tribal groups from southern Indiaâthe Chenchus and Koyasâwere analyzed for variation in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), the Y chromosome, and one autosomal locus and were compared with six caste groups from different parts of India, as well as with western and central Asiansâ¦. H, L, and R2 are the major Indian Y-chromosomal haplogroups that occur both in castes and in tribal populations and are rarely found outside the subcontinent.... Haplotype frequencies of the MX1 locus of chromosome 21 distinguish Koyas and Chenchus, along with Indian caste groups, from European and eastern Asian populations. Taken together, these results show that Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene. [Source]
Political Oneness
Having seen how Bharat is culturally and civilizationally one, I come to the next topic of political unity.
As I said different political kingdoms does not in any way disprove nationhood. For example, in US all the 50 states are very different in many many ways, they even have double citizenship, different laws etc. But such mere administrative differences cannot disprove the concept of Nationhood.
Having said that, we can see that many successful attempts at political unity too were also made in India.
Among the earliest political consolidations, even by the dates of present colonial scholarship, was under the Mauryas from the 6th century BC to the 3rd century BC, when most of India was under their rule.
After the Mauryas, there was repeated political consolidation of large parts of India, even when all of it was not under a single rule. The Kanishkas consolidated the north from the Hindu Kush Mountains to Bihar and south to Gujarat and Central India. The Satavahana Empire, considered to be founded by high officials of the Mauryas, consolidated the south and central parts.
The Gupta Empire again politically consolidated the area from Afghanistan to Assam and south to the Narmada, possibly exerting political control even further down south. Samudragupta led an expedition all the way down to Kanchipuram in present Tamil Nadu. While the southern areas were not formally part of the Empire, they were quite likely de-facto vassal states, paying tribute to the Emperor.
Note that it would be a thousand years after the Mauryan Empire was established and even much after the Gupta Empire that the Anglo-Saxons in the 5th century AD would first move into the region that would later be called England. It would be nearly five hundred more years before the territory of England would be consolidated as an independent political entity. Only much later would there be attempts at unity of `Great Britain'. The `United Kingdom' that includes Scotland, Wales and Ireland, as we mentioned earlier, is only a recent political artifact.
After the Gupta Empire, the Chalukya-Chola dynasty consolidated most of India in the south, leading expeditions even up to the north of the Ganges river.
Later on, much of India would be consolidated again under the Mughals, and after the Mughal empire disintegrated, by the British.
So while the British were the last power, before the current state of India, to administratively consolidate its territory (as well as to divide it up as they left), they were by no means the first ones to do so.
Even when multiple kingdoms existed, these kingdoms were not like the countries of today with a passport and visa regime needed to cross and all kinds of regulations on movement of goods and people. A continued exchange of ideas, people, goods and scholarship took place throughout the sub-continent, largely unmindful of the boundaries of kingdoms.
Furthermore, the territorial boundaries of India were largely maintained. There were few, if any, times before the British came when large parts of India were consolidated into kingdoms that were centered outside it. There were no significant long-lasting kingdoms, for instance, that ruled from Persia to the Ganges plain, or from Burma to Bengal, or from China or Tibet to Delhi. There was a separateness and integrity to this land.
Even in the case of the British, when all of India became part of a larger empire centered outside it for the first time, it was clear that it was distinct from Burma, for instance, even though they were contiguous land areas ruled by the British. And thus the freedom movements in Burma and India were separate. Burma and India did not become one after their respective independence, nor was there any call by Indian or Burmese nationalists to do so.
Thus there was an idea of India that made it be regarded as a separate and whole, even through political change and shifting boundaries of internal kingdoms.
In conclusion, I can only say that this crap of Bharat is not a Nation before and thanks to British for making it one is just a case of a lie repeatedly told until people started taking it as a sort of truth.
"India is not just a piece of land, not merely a collection of people, but a conscious spiritual being, a Divine Power, a Shakti, Devi, Goddess. India is Mother India, a living form of Divine Mother." ~ Sri Aurobindo
Disclaimer: Many part of this I plagiarized from this article and some are my additions.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Though OT, I need to add to the blog in #38
An integral part of Hindu Renaissance is stopping Islamic, Xtian, Commie renaissance. And that is done by the standard way to kill lies: expose them. For stopping Islamism, I cannot overemphasize the need for a steady stream of small and large defeats for Islam (in addition to exposing the truth about it). Physical defeats. Blowing up Taliban, Shia-Sunnie slaughter in faraway lands..fools think only when they are forced to, and mullah-loving fraction of muslims are fools.
I say all this because we Can Not talk of Hindu Renassance w/o talking of killing off Imism/MissionaryXtianity/Reds..both are inseparable.
And while I am at it, killing off Missionary Xtianity needs clarity of thought: Missionary Apologists, or those who feel that something somehow is wrong with Hindus trying to defend themselves against Baptists etc. need to be told to FO, and this needs to be done without any regrets.
<!--emo&:blow--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blow.gif' /><!--endemo--> Where does article lead to:
1. Sugesstion of name change
2. National uprising and fervor
etc etc----
|
