Politics Of Indian History -2

12-14-2006, 10:26 PM

QUOTE(acharya @ Dec 11 2006, 03:51 PM)Can you expand this and write a longer article and refute his assertions.
we need to keep refuting this kind of psy ops in a logical manner.
Please do it and IF will publish it.
[right][snapback]62004[/snapback][/right]


Ok. As soon as I get done with some present pre-occupations. Will send for your review.

agnivayu · (This post was last modified: 12-15-2006, 08:02 AM by agnivayu.)

[attachmentid=59]

12-19-2006, 02:04 AM

http://india.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/6203.shtml
Distortions in Indian History
By N S Rajaram

**acharya** · 12-26-2006, 08:09 AM

Spreading the Aryan myth
By Manju Gupta

India: Historical Beginnings and the Concept of the Aryan, Romila Thapar, Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, Madhav M. Deshpande & Shereen Ratnagar, National Book Trust, India, pp 201, Rs 65.00

The beginnings of Indian history have become a hot topic of discussion today attracting complex and controversial arguments relating partly to archaeological evidence and to the advances made in the study of historical linguistics and partly to the new theories of interpreting the data. What happens as a result is that interpretation assists in supporting ideologies of identity in present times. Interpretations tend to deviate from scholarly concerns adding to problems faced in co-relating complex data. What the historian is concerned with is not just the âthe Aryanâ as a category but the range of societies that co-existed between 3000 and 500 BC and their mutual interaction. âSome were agro-pastoral, others agricultural and yet others, urban, with much interdependence,â says historian Romila Thapar.

The book under review attempts to set out the parameters of the problem in terms of the various aspects that impinge upon it: the history of the concept and how it has influenced historical thinking about the beginnings of Indian history. Here four essays have been compiled together by different historians to present four different aspects of the discussion that have gone into the making of what is now called âthe Aryanâ and Aryan culture.

Romila Thapar says that if one seeks for a narrative of the beginnings of Indian history from Indian sources, such a narrative can be found in some of the Puranas. She says that significantly the view of the beginnings of Indian history makes no mention of the original ancestors being âAryanâ, in part perhaps because the term âAryanâ was not an ethnic label. The names in the descent lists of the Puranas are not listed as Aryan or non-Aryan and the âancestry of some is distinctly uncertainâ.

She is of the view that the Vedas were composed earlier than the Puranas and were therefore taken as the starting point of Indian history. She continues, âAryan identity was encouraged by the pre-eminence given to the Vedas by the Brahmanical tradition which also ensured that they become the primary texts for European scholars working on Indian civilisationâ and that the theory of Aryan race was viewed âas foundational to Indian history largely through what has been called the twinning of the theories of British Sanskritists and ethnographers.â

She even refers to Jyotiba Puleâs perceptions which became important to the Dalit perspective on Indian history and Dayanand Saraswatiâs thesis set out in the Satyarth Prakash, so much so that at one point of time the Theosophical Society and Saraswatiâs Arya Samaj held identical views â Caste Hindus were Aryans and Aryans were indigenous to India. Non-Hindus were foreign and thus were the Muslims, Christians, Parsis, and the communists as well. All these were aliens since India was neither the land of their birth â pitrbhumi nor the place where their religion originated âpunyabhumi. She summarises the concept of the Aryan theory which âhas been influenced by various nationalisms and imperialisms and continues to be so in some cases.â

Jonathan Mark Kenoyer uses the word âfactoidsâ to describe archaeological studies on the concept of âAryanâ race. He counters the term âAryanâ which is derived from the term âaryaâ found in the Rigveda and those linguists who considered Sanskrit a branch of Indo-Aryan languages. He says that classification of a personâs genetic heritage is totally misleading and factually incorrect because a personâs language does not always correlate to the personâs genetic history. He cites another example of âfactoidâ and that is the destruction of Mohenjodaro by so-called âAryanâ invaders. He quotes Kenoyer and Possehl who said that the decline of Mohenjodaro is no longer attributed to the Indo-Aryan invasion or migrations, disease or floods but rather to a âcombination of factors that include the changing river system, the disruption of the subsistence base and a breakdown in the integrative factors of trade and religion.â

He refers to the claim of various historians and archaeologists regarding the Harappan culture, the Indus or the Indus-Saraswati civilisation and discusses in detail the Indus tradition which began with the period of initial domestication and settled village communities, the Indus burial tradition and the decline and transformation of Indus civilisation. He talks of the material Vedic culture as revealed by ritual fire altars, the use of the horse and other animals for sacrificial purposes and the conspicuous lack of writing.

Regarding the terms âAryaâ and âAnaryaâ, Madhav M. Deshpande says that the term âAryaâ is an ethnic term seen only in the ancient linguistic materials found in Iran and India. He continues, âThe ancient linguistic material of the Indo-Iranian branch consists of the Vedic texts of ancient India, and the Avestan and Old Persian texts of ancient Iranâ and that linguistic research indicates the likely path taken by the Indo-Iranians from areas to the north of the Central Asian region, through that region and finally into the areas of Iran, Afghanistan and India. He concludes that much of the âresearch combines linguistic and archaeological insights.â

Shereen Ratnagar in her essay says that the extant language families under Indo-European dispersed geographically from the grasslands of Europe and Central Asia with Indo-Iranian representing one cleavage branching into two and resulting in the development of Avestan language of speakers who went to Iran and of Vedic Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan) of speakers who went to India. The author concludes, âThe Rigvedic society tribal, its ancestor rituals being of commensurate importance, the Rigveda grama was not a village in the sense understood today, but as a group that on the move. In this culture greater value was attached to cattle and horses that to fields or to piling of stacks of grain.â Cattle were the social currency figuring as the best form of wealth. âThe Iranian Gathas reveal a similar feature, utilising the metaphors of the herd, the protecting herdsman, etc.â

The book is a scholarly contribution to historiography through archaeological, linguistic, anthropological and historical evidences and makes for a better understanding of the âAryanâ and the Aryan culture.

(National Book Trust, India, A-5 Green Park, New Delhi-110016.)

ramana · 01-04-2007, 11:39 AM

Most people credit Hegel with the Linear theory of History as opposed to the cyclical theory of History in his book The Philosophy of History. His Philosophy of History led to Marx's interpretation of dialectic materialism and the modern era.

However the linear theory of history was an invention of the Jewish tribes during their lost years in Persia as Thomas Cahill proves in his book "Gift of the Jews".

What this means is that even the Marxist theory is an extension of the Jewish and Christian religious doctrine for the linear theory of history is very much a part of their faith. This explains why the end of Communism or End of History results in Christianization.

So Indian secular historians who seek to rewrite Indian history in Marxist dialectic rhetoric will end up paving the way for Christianizing their followers.

Book Review _"Gifts of the Jews"

01-19-2007, 09:12 PM

Demons from the past âIrfan Husain
QUOTEThe reason I mention this period of history is to try and understand the bitterness that must exist in many Hindu minds over the Muslim conquest of their country. In his Story of Civilisation, Will Durant writes: âThe Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest in historyâ. While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enouh to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan.

The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Indeed, the presence of Muslim historians on their various campaigns has ensured that the memory of their deeds will live long after they were buried.


QUOTEOne irony, of course, is that contrary to their wishful thinking, the vast majority of Muslims in the subcontinent have more Hindu blood in their veins than there is Arab, Afghan, Turkish or Persian blood. Many of the invaders took Hindu wives and concubines. And many Hindus converted to Islam to further their military or civil service careers. As a result of this intermingling, despite proud boasts of pure bloodlines, most Pakistanis have many Hindu ancestors.


QUOTEWhy resurrect these ghosts from history? Because until we have confronted the demons from our past, we cannot understand the dynamics of contemporary events. As India and Pakistan go through the intricate steps of peace talks, each side needs to know what makes the other tick.

Whether we like it or not, neither geography nor history can be changed. While both countries have engaged in rewriting the past to suit their respective agendas, the facts cannot be erased. Both Muslims and Hindus have to live together as neighbours, and in India, as citizens.


Irfan Hussain sounds like this Irfan?
Mr Hussain sounds like a "Hindutva" here so maybe more Id Iftar party invites from fake-Friends of South Asia or Harvard Hate clubs?

**acharya** · 01-27-2007, 11:35 AM

Educational System During Pre-British Days

One Teacher, One School: The Adam Reports on Indigenous Education in 19th Century India, by Joseph DiBona, Biblia Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

2 History of Indigenous Education in the Punjab since Annexation and in 1882, by G.W. Leitner, 1883, Reprinted by Languages Department, Punjab, Patiala, 1971.

3 The Beautiful Tree: Indigenous Indian Education in the Eighteenth Century, by Dharampal (Biblia Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi).

QUOTE4 The Indian system of education was so economical, so effective that some of its features were exported to England and Europe. The "monitor", the "slate", the "group-study" were directly borrowed from the old Indian practice. A short account of this practice is available from an eye-witness report of a European named Pietro Della Valle published in 1623. But 200 years later, around 1800, two Britons, Dr. Bell and Mr. Lancaster, who were servants of the East India Company, introduced in England a "New System of Schooling", embodying Indian practices of teaching. Both claimed originality for themselves. In the controversy that ensued, it was found that both had borrowed from India without acknowledgment, of course.

In this connection we have the testimony of Brigadier-General Alexander Walker who served in the East India Company from 1780 to 1810. While reporting on teaching methods in Malabar, he says that the new British "system was borrowed from the Brahmans and brought from India to Europe. It has been made the foundation of the National Schools in every enlightened country. Some gratitude is due to a people from who we have learnt to diffuse among the lower ranks of society instructions by one of the most unerring and economical methods which has ever been invented". According to him, by this method, "the children are instructed without violence, and by a process peculiarly simple".
Â Â 

The Hindu View of Education

Education in Ancient India By Hartmut Scharfe
By Hartmut Scharfe
Published 2002
Brill Academic Publishers
Architecture
355 pages
ISBN 9004125566
$149.75

QUOTE
This is the first comprehensive survey of all aspects of education in India, both in the oral and written traditions. Chronologically it covers everything from the Vedic period upto the Hindu kingdoms before the establishment of Muslim rule. If relevant, the reader will regularly find sidesteps to modern continuities.

The role of the oral tradition and the techniques of memorization are discussed, the education in small private tutorials and the development of large monasteries and temple schools approaching university character. Professional training, the role of the teacher and of foreign languages are dealt with, and the impact of the peculiar features of Indian education on Indian society.

The full documentation facilitates quick access to the original sources scholarly literature on Indian education. A true reference work.

02-10-2007, 08:29 AM

Babu at ICHR helm has historians, Left annoyed

QUOTEThe appointment of a bureaucrat from the HRD Ministry as the chairman of Indian Council for Historical Research (ICHR) has irked the Left historians with the CPI(M) sharing the same concern.

The controversy comes close on the heels of the CPI(M) lambasting the government for not including a "historian worth the name" in the government panel to celebrate the 150 years of First War of Independence. Twenty historians, including Irfan Habib, D N Jha and Arjun Dev, in a statement have flayed the move saying "since such a person (a bureaucrat) is not answerable either to the council or government, he inevitably treats as a personal fief, a situation that is most inimical to the academic activities of the organisation."

"This affects the autonomy of the ICHR and should be resisted," Irfan Habib told The Indian Express. "We share their concern at the appointment of a non-historian as the chairman of the ICHR," said senior CPI(M) leader Nilotpal Basu.

Habib reminds that the ICHR rules "enjoin that the Government of India should appoint an eminent historian to be its chairman".

Following three-year term of D N Tripathi as the chairman came to an end on February 4, K M Acharya, under secretary in the HRD Ministry was appointed as his successor.

While the historians urged the government to appoint a "historian of stature as the chairman", they asked the government to ensure the present chairman should not take any action that "disturbs either the administrative arrangements or the programme undertaken by the council."

Explains Irfan Habib, "the bureaucrat chairman is not answerable to the council or the committees." The historians also point out that the UPA Government was keen to take up corrective actions at the ICHR.

The present government in the CMP had promised to "de-saffronise" government-funded academic institutes and the Human Resource Development Ministry had set up a one-person committee to review the affairs of the ICHR in September 2004. 

D Bandyopadhyay, a retired civil servant, was given the mandate to review their administration and functioning between 1998 and 2004, the period when the BJP headed the coalition government at the Centre, and Murli Manohar Joshi was the HRD minister.

03-07-2007, 04:53 AM

QUOTES.L.Byrappa's article in Vijaya Karnataka of 27 September 2006.

What would be the fate of TRUTH if a Historian turnâs to be a Fiction author?

During 1969-70, the Central Government under Smt. Indira Gandhi, with a mission to integrate the nation through education had established a committee under the Chairmanship of G.Parthasarathy, a diplomat who was close to Nehru-Gandhi family. At that time I was a reader in Educational Philosophy at NCERT and I was selected as one of the five members of the committee. In the first meeting Mr. Parthasarathy, the Chairman of the committee had explained the purpose of the committee in his diplomatic polite language: "it is our duty not to sow the seeds of thorns in the minds of the growing children which will shape up as barriers for the national integration. Such thorns are mostly seen in the history lessons. Even we can find them occasionally in the language and social science lessons. We have to weed out such thorns. We have to include only such thoughts which will inculcate the concept of national integration in the minds of the children. This committee has this great responsibility on it."

Other four members were nodding their heads respectfully. I said:

"Sir, I am not able to understand your words. Will you please explain with some illustrations? "

"Gazni Mohammed had looted Somnath Temple , Aurangzeb built the mosques by demolishing the temples in Kashi and Mathura , he collected jizya - is it helpful to build a strong India under the present circumstances by conveying such useless facts, other than generating the hatred in the minds?"

"But are not they the historical truths?"

"Plenty of truths are there. To use these truths discriminately is the wisdom of the history"

The remaining four members simply nodded their heads by saying "yes, yes".

"You gave examples of Kashi and Mathura . Even today every year lakhs of people go to these places from all nooks and corners of the country as pilgrims. They can see very clearly the huge mosques built using the same walls, pillars and columns of the demolished temples, they can also see a recently built cow shed like structure in a corner, behind the mosque, representing their temple. All these pilgrims are distressed to witness such awful structures. They describe the plight of their temples to their relatives after they return home. Whether this can create national integration? One can hide the history in the school texts. But can we hide such facts when these children go on excursions? The researchers have listed more than thirty thousand such ruined temples in India . Can we hide them all? . . . . ."

Mr. Parthasarthy interrupted me by asking "you are a professor of Philosphy. Please tell us what is the purpose of history?"

"No body can define the purpose of history. We do not know how the things shape up because of the development of science and technology in the future. Some western thinkers might have called it the philosophy of history. But such thoughts are futile. Our discussion here should be, what is the purpose of teaching history? History is seeking the truth about our past events, learning about the ancient human lives by studying the inscriptions, records, literary works, relics, artifacts etc. We should not commit the same blunders that our predecessors committed, we have to imbibe the noble qualities that they have adopted, historical truths help us to learn all these things.. . . ."

"Can we hurt the feelings of the minority? Can we divide the society? Can we sow the seeds of poison . . . ." he stopped me with these questions.

"Sir, the categorization on the lines of majority and minority would itself result in the division of the society or that would be a strategy to divide the society. This idea of 'seeds of poison' is prejudiced. Why should the minority think that Gazni Mohammed, Aurangzeb are their own people? Mughal kingdom was destroyed by the religious bigotry of Aurangzeb. Mughal kingdom was at its pinnacle because of Akbar's rules for religious harmony, can't we teach such lessons to the children without offending the historical truths? Before teaching the lessons to be learnt from the history, should we not explain the historical truths? These ideals of hiding history are influenced by the politics. This trend will not last long. Whether they are minority or majority, if the education does not impart the intellectual power to face the truth and the resultant emotional maturity then such education is meaningless and also dangerous." I said.

Parthasarathy agreed. He appreciated my scholarship and ability to think. During lunch break he called me separately, indicated his closeness to me by touching my shoulders, enquired about my native place. He asked me to write a Kannada word, and spoke two sentences in Tamil thus emphasized the fact that we are from neighbouring states, speaking the sister languages. Afterwards he said with a winning smile, "your thoughts are correct academically. You write an article about this. But when the government formulates a policy governing the entire nation, it has to combine the interests of all the people. Puritan principles do not serve any purpose."

Next day when we met, I struck to my stand strongly. I argued that history that is not based on truth is futile and dangerous too. Parthasarathy showed his irritation on his face. I did not budge. The morning session closed without arriving at any conclusion. Parthasarathy did not speak to me again. After a fortnight again we met. The committee was re-structured, my name was not there, in my place a lecturer in history by name Arjun dev with leftist ideas was included in the committee. The revised text books of science and social studies published by NCERT and the new lessons that were introduced in these texts were written under his guidance. These are the books which were prescribed as texts in the congress and communist ruled states or they guided the text book writers in these States.

(I am quoting this instance taken from my presidential speech at Alwas Nudisiri, second conference held on October 21,22,23-2005) .

NCERT books for XI standard, Ancient India is written by a Marxist historian R.S. Sharma and Medieval India written by another Marxist historian Satish Chandra, when reviewed, one can observe that how members belonging to this group had a scheme to invade the minds of growing children.

According to them Ashoka preached to respect even (stress is mine) Brahmins by advocating the quality of tolerance. He had banned the ritual of sacrificing the animals and birds, performance of yagnas were stopped due to this ban, Brahmins lost their share of dakshina (cash gifts) and their livelihood was affected. After Ashoka, Maurya kingdom was disintegrated and many parts of this kingdom came under the rule of Brahmins. How childish it is, to say that a highly influential religion, which had spread all over India and even crossed the borders to reach foreign shores declined because of dissatisfied Brahmins who were deprived of their dakshina (cash gifts).

Muslims demolished the temples to loot the riches and wealth accumulated in these temples- this explanation softens their actions. In some other context they may even say the looting may be according to the laws of Shariat which again paints the events as insignificant.

Dr. Ambedkar in the section, the decline and fall of Buddhism (Writings and Speeches volume III, Government of Maharashtra 1987 pp 229-38) after explaining the events like Muslim invaders destroying the universities of Nalanda, Vikramasheela, Jagaddala, Odanthapura etc., brutal killings of the Buddhist monks, escape of Buddhist monks to Nepal, Tibet to save their lives says, "the roots of Buddhism were axed. Islam killed the Buddhism by killing priestly class of Buddhism. This is the worst catastrophe suffered by the Buddhism in India ."

These Marxists who quote Dr. Ambedkar whenever it is convenient for them to denigrate Hinduism, ignore nicely these words 'the decline of Buddhism in India is due to terrifying actions of Muslims'of Dr. Ambedkar, who fought against the caste system in Hinduism throughout his life and at the end embraced Buddhism; this may be it is one of the important philosophies of Indian Marxists. R.S. Sharma the author of NCERT text Ancient India, New Delhi , 1992 p 112 writes, "Buddha viharas attracted Turkish invaders because of their wealth. They were the special greedy targets for the invaders. Turks killed many Buddhist monks. Despite these killings, many monks escaped to Nepal and Tibet ."

Here the clever Marxists have hidden the fact that Muslims destroyed these religious places as dictated by Shariat by calling Muslims of Turkey with a tribal name Turkish. At the same time they write that Buddhism declined during Ashoka's reign because of Brahmins who were deprived of their dakshina (monetary gifts). One should appreciate their cleverness to hide a truth by creating an untruth.

The English scholars who started writing Indian history on the lines of European history have introduced had a cunning idea behind their scholarship. First they established that Indian culture is Vedic culture. The creators of this culture are Aryans who were outsiders. Aryans established themselves by destroying the local civilization. All the invaders who came later were outsiders. Muslims came. After them we (English) came. Therefore if we are not natives of this country, you are also not natives of this land. English strengthened this argument in the universities, media and also in the minds of the English educated people.

Rigveda the so called religious text of Aryans was written when they were outside India . That means the basic religion of Indians was originated from a foreign land. This argument severed the spiritual relationship between India and Indians. English educated Indians were struggling with this alien feeling for about 100 years. This argument sowed and enraged the feelings of hatred and racial hostility between Aryans who were outsiders and the Dravidians the natives of this land. It is easy to create the feelings of hatred and hostility. But the people who know the human psychology can understand that it is very difficult to come out of such feelings even after knowing that the reasons quoted in support of these arguments were proved wrong. Although the research conducted in the later periods discovered many facts which disapproved the Aryan Invasion theory, nobody has written a complete history of India from the Indian point of view.

Under such circumstances, freedom fighter, follower of Gandhi, famous advocate, the member of Constitution Drafting Committee, a great scholar, founder of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Kanhiahlal Munshi had planned to write a complete Indian history.

He invited an eminent scholar and researcher R.C. Majumdar to be the editor of this book. Both of them entered into a contract. As per the terms of the contract Munshi should supply all the equipment and finance that is required by Majumdar. But he should never interfere in the matters of choosing the historians to write various sections, and also in the ensuing discussions. Munshi was committed to this agreement.

Majumdar and his team of scholars published 11 volumes of a complete, objective and scholarly book, 'THE HISTORY AND THE CULTURE OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE'. In the last 15 years nobody has written a book like this singly or jointly.

National Book Trust had proposed to translate all these volumes in all the Indian languages. The proposal was sent to ICHR (Indian Council for Historical Research) The ICHR committee comprised ofCommunist leaning people like S.Gopal, Tapan Roy Choudhary, Satish Chandra, Romilla Thapar etc. They had recommended that these volumes from Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan are not suitable for translation and hence the proposal
should be rejected.

This ICHR committee e suggested alternative books for the translation into Indian languages.which were written by either these members of the committee or by their other Marxist comrades. Their list included five books of ICHR president R.S. Sharma, 3 books of S. Gopal (the son of scholar philosopher S. Radhakrishnan) , 3 books of Romilla Thapar, 2 books of Bipin Chandra, 2 books of Irfan Habib, 2 books of his father Mohammed Habib, one book of Satish Chandra, books of E.M.S. Namboodripad, then senior leader of Communist Party of India and the book of British Rajni Pamdatta (who was controlling Indian communists during the decade of 1940s). But there was not even a single book of Lokamanya Tilak, Jadunath Sarkar or R.C. Majumdar!

(One has to refer Arun Shourie's EMINENT HISTORIANS: Their Technology, Various groups hate Arun Shourie for various reasons. Shourie is special, in the sense that he will investigate thoroughly until he reaches the roots of any subject which he intends to write. In the book Eminent Historians, Sri Shourie has investigated about these writers and has unearthed the details of who had recommended the books for translation and who has received what remuneration how much fees and in what form .)

The influence of Gandhian thoughts had declined in the Congress Party in the last days of Gandhiji. Nehru never followed Gandhian thoughts. Though he had great admiration for the democracy of England , in his heart he had love for the communism of Russia . After he came to power he gradually sidelined other congress leaders. The death of Patel was a boon to him. Rajendra Prasad as a President was only a formal head. Rajaji, Krupalani though they formed their own parties, were not influential enough. Nehru was not innocent though he was under the control of a radical communist like Krishna Menon. He was well known in the international circles because he was one of the leading figures who followed the global non-alignment policy but yet he was disliked by western countries like America as the non alignment policy had the strong support of communist Russia . As a result India suffered a loss.

India 's loss was not Nehru's loss. He was so much devoted and had a strong faith in communism that his government and the entire Indian Media was chanting the mantra, Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai as a daily ritual till China forcibly kicked us out of our own land. In the meantime communists (Marxists) had occupied the Indian intellectual world. Nehru had a scheme to divide Hindus and to please the Muslims for his political survival. Nehru adopted the same strategy that British used to continue their regime in this country. Secularism means a word of contempt used to address only Hindus. Secularism means our duty towards Muslims and Christians. Nehru spread the message that minority will never be secular. M.C. (Mohammed Karim) Chagla in his autobiography, 'Roses in December' writes, he was born and brought up in Mumbai. He was a lawyer in the same city, earned a great name as an honest person. Later he retired as the Chief Justice of Mumbai High Court. He wanted to contest for Loksabha. He wrote a letter to Nehru asking for a ticket for one of the constituencies of Mumbai. He was given a ticket from Aurangabad constituency through a letter from Congress high command. He had written a letter in reply to the high command letter, "I was born and I grew up in Mumbai, I am familiar with the people of Mumbai by serving them. Why did you give me ticket for the unfamiliar Aurangabad ?" Nehru's high command answer for this letter was, " Aurangabad is a Muslim majority constituency. You are also a Muslim. So you can contest from that constituency. "

Indira Gandhi had one and only aim of retaining the power, so she needed the support of communists to crush the Jansangh and the old guards of Congress like Morarji Desai, Nijalingappa, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, Kamraj and others. Communists knew pretty well that they cannot occupy the seat of power directly, so they devised a plan so that at least their theories would capture the seat of power. Therefore Indira Gandhi helped them to enter and occupy the posts in the universities, media, ICHR, NCERT etc. Communist Russia also pressurized to follow this path. Nehru and his daughter had become so close to Russia that they were not in a position to oppose her strongly. Communists somehow learnt the tactics from the dictatorial administration models of Russia and China to take the reins in their hands completely after occupying the vital places in the intellectual life of the country.This still continues even the lifeline of UPA government of Sonia Gandhi is in the hands of communists.

Media pretended silence when leftists occupied the education and history commissions, the departments of history, social science, literature and other subjects of the universities in our country. Leftists raised their voices when Murali Manohar Joshi from NDA government tried to bring the changes like Indianising the education, directing to mention the contributions of the ancient India to science while teaching science, advising to begin the day in the schools with Saraswathi Vandana. Even media projected them as great calamities. Congress members and the proponents of equality started a movement because they could visualize the rising storms in the country due to these changes. Nobody from these groups are objecting when Arjun Singh is resurrecting the leftist agenda in its extreme form. Media, specially the English media, in fact is encouraging this trend.

The only aim of Congress is to retain the power and it lacks the original thinking. It is sleeping blissfully in the thought of borrowing it from the communists. But it is following the liberal policies, thinking that the economic polices of the previous government had damaged the economy. Communists have accepted these policies in their hearts and are unable to come out of the clutches of Marxism, the very basis of their identity.

The methods adopted by the leftists to spread their roots is not different from the bane of caste politics in India . They systematically execute the tasks of appointing people who are loyal to their theories in the universities, presenting their own theories through newspapers, television and other media, getting appreciative criticisms for the books written by their favourite writers, devising plans to banish the writers from the opposite group, spreading their messages by organizing seminars frequently to attract the growing minds, getting awards and titles for their own men from the government. They have started a system of literary criticism for evaluating the books in the light of the standards defined in their theories. They think that they have reduced to the dust the traditional concepts of criticism like pure literature, aesthetics, imagery, context etc.

Even the truth in case of communists would be the stand taken by their party, similarly other values like art, morals etc. I need not explain these things to the people who have read the books written about these topics published by the communist Russia and sold at cheaper rates in India and in other countries.

I am always interested in the sociology, psychology history and other branches of humanities. I have studied all these subjects to some extent. Philosophy is my professional subject. Soundarya Meemse is my research field. But I am interested in the literature, I started writing novels. Truth and beauty, specially the relationship between the truth and the literature is haunting my mind. How much liberty an author has while creating the historical characters which are clearly defined by the inscriptions, records, relics, excavations and other evidences? I am haunted by this query- what is the nature of this liberty? The statements made by the author of 'The Real Tipu'(Kannada translation "Tipu - nija swaroopa" by Pradhan Gurudatta, Sahithi Sindhu Prakashana, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore 1) H.D. Sharma in his preface in the matter has stimulated my thoughts. "Tipusultan has recently leaped from the history books on to the small screen. This has created a special interest about him and his period. This has raised a serious debate. Because many people - specially the people from Kerala - feel that Tipu was not like he was shown in the TV serial. (The serial is based on the novel 'The Sword of Tipusultan' by Bhagwan S. Gidwani is full of lies and has twisted the facts.) TV serial has contributed the untruths in its own way. This raging debate motivated me to make a detailed study about Tipu. When I learnt the facts I was shocked." (This is the English translation of Pradhan Gurudat's Kannada translation quoted by Mr. Bhyrappa in the article.)

Of course, one should not think about the Indian, specially the bollywood people who are experts in selling their thrilling, colourful entertainments. Even the people who write ballads are from the village fairs and dramas. But why people who write serious literature create thrilling, entertaining scenes of different type? Why do not they be loyal to the historical facts? Why do not they release themselves from the clutches of the historians of their ideology and try to interpret the historical evidences thinking independently? The historian S. Shettar (ICHR president) who supported Girish Karnad says, "Girish Karnad while writing a drama on Tippusultan, was searching for his good qualities only with the purpose of writing a drama. Dramatists and historians and creative writers will have their own ideals."

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 03-08-2007, 12:52 AM by Bodhi.)

The original grandmother of politically-driven history teaching in Indian classrooms to feed the lies and pollute the young Indian minds with false sense of history. The b@st@rd (in pure sense) was born from the womb of scholarship-for-sale impregnated by Macaulay's education policy and lovingly nursed and breast-fed by British imperialism.

Text-book of Indian history for Indian schools, specimen copy 1891
By Henry George Keene

VS Naipaul alludes about this particular book at a few places in his novels. Downloadable google book.

**acharya** · 03-09-2007, 01:27 AM

March 11, 2004

The Invisible Intellectual

By Sudhanva Deshpande

Unobtrusive, withdrawn, almost shy, he died as he lived: quietly, without fuss, in his sleep. Krishna Raj was responsible for creating, single-handedly, one of the most incredible intellectual institutions of our times, a journal called Economic and Political Weekly (EPW).

India boasts of one of the most vibrant democratic intellectual cultures anywhere in the world, even if the actual realization of political democracy on the ground remains imperfect, uneven, flawed, skewed, and currently - under the right wing dispensation that rules at the centre and in several states - under grave threat. The mark of this democratic intellectual culture is the vast variety of opinion that gets expressed in the media, and indeed in the very wide range of platforms that are available, in spite of growing corporatization of the media, for the thinking and concerned citizen to air his or her views.

While India has more than a dozen major languages - and each one of these languages has a robust intellectual and political culture - English is today undeniably the major language of intellectual discourse. And it is in English that we have four remarkable periodicals.

One is Mainstream, a magazine analysing current affairs, edited for long years by the late Nikhil Chakravartty. Then there is Seminar, a monthly devoted to debating a single problem from a variety of standpoints in each issue, edited by the husband-wife team of Raj and Romesh Thapar. Neither is alive today, but the journal continues publication with vigour. The youngest publication is Frontline, a newsmagazine edited by N. Ram.

While Mainstream has lost some of its sparkle after the death of its founder editor, Seminar, by its very nature, only commissions articles and caters to a somewhat shifting readership in each issue. Aijaz Ahmad, in the preface of his latest book 'Iraq, Afghanistan and the Imperialism of Our Time', rates Frontline the best English language newsmagazine anywhere in the world, and his verdict is hard to contest. But it is also to be noted that Frontline is the publication of The Hindu, a family-owned group of newspapers with a long and distinguished history, manned by professional journalists.

The most remarkable in this list of remarkable publications, the most open, democratic platform, is EPW.

To those unacquainted with India, it would be hard to explain the enormity of EPW's prestige and its achievements. Unlike any academic journal I know of from anywhere in the world, EPW was born, and has remained, a weekly.

For close to forty years, the journal's pages have been a clearing house of serious ideas on politics, economics, history, sociology, anthropology, and often the sciences as well. In addition to its weekly quota of some four or five academic papers, EPW also publishes, every year, reviews of agriculture, labour, industry, management and gender studies, consisting of about half a dozen commissioned papers by leading authorities in each field.

The very best of Indian social science research has been published by EPW, and often non-Indian academics have chosen to publish theoretical papers here rather than in journals of the west. As an academic journal, EPW holds its own against the best in the world. I have personally known academics who have waited for an year or more to get their name into EPW, for being published there is a mark of recognition for the quality of your research. An EPW citation invariably occupies pride of place in the curriculum vitae of a young scholar in any university anywhere in the world.

In this democratic republic of ideas, an unknown research scholar from an obscure part of the land gets as much space and prominence as an Amartya Sen or Romila Thapar. Over the years, senior bureaucrats, behind the protective shield of pseudonyms, have used the columns of EPW to critique government policy.

There is not a single debate of academic or political importance that has not animated its pages over the last three decades or more, be it the mode of production debate, or the question of imperialism, or underdevelopment, or the debt crisis of the third world, or the debates around subaltern historiography, or on the nature and direction of the Indian polity, or on questions of gender, caste, culture and environment. And remarkably for what was, for a long time, viewed as a journal of the (non-party) left, EPW has opened its pages to virtually every shade of rigorous thought.

But unlike any scholarly journal I know, EPW has also provided lavish space to commentaries on current issues, to columns by a number of top-class but somewhat idiosyncratic writers, to pithy and incisive editorials on a bewildering range of subjects of public concern, and to longer pieces that set out to provoke academic or political debate. In addition, EPW also publishes tables and tables of impeccably researched economic data and statistics, a lively letters to the editor column, and book reviews as well as review articles.

EPW defies every stereotype. It is a small, independent journal employing some twenty staff members on less than modest wages, but its professionalism is the envy of the best and biggest. Not a single issue has ever been delayed for any reason, including the death of its editor. Every single piece that appears in EPW is carefully and meticulously edited for style as well as content. It looks spartan, unostentatious, it is printed on inexpensive newsprint, carries no photographs, and makes no concessions to visual flourish, not even the use of fine typefaces or comfortable inter-line leading.

It is page after page of tightly composed text, and expects to be read with the same urgency as a dictionary or medical reference book. In fact, its functionality is itself an aesthetic, like those old, rugged, metal-bodied SLR cameras.

For a publication that looks nearly intimidating, EPW has phenomenal reach and circulation. University dons as much as undergraduates, corporate bigwigs and financial sector managers, bureaucrats and political leaders, social and political activists, anybody who has anything to do with the world of ideas and the state of the nation reads EPW.

We have all grown up on EPW, debating passionately this or that question that the journal threw at us, waiting anxiously for the issue next week to see how the debate was turning out. And the thrill of receiving the first acceptance note from the editor would surpass for a young scholar the thrill of many weightier honours in future life.

In the 1990s, as the neoliberal reform programme of the Indian economy gathered pace, EPW switched sides and began arguing in favour of the policies of liberalization and globalization.

Opinion on this policy shift was bitterly divided. Left intellectuals, particularly economists, felt a sense of betrayal, rightly so, and some of the best known among them boycotted EPW, perhaps not so rightly. Non- and anti-left liberals welcomed the change, celebrating EPW's 'glasnost'. Whatever one's opinion on the editorial shift, it is uncontested that the journal itself maintained high standards and commanded huge readership.

There is simply no getting away from it: EPW is a magnificent and unique intellectual institution.

On the left, we often think of movements as being more important than individuals, and perhaps they are, but in the process we underrate the individuals who build structures that enable movements to live and thrive.

Krishna Raj was one such man.

A master editor of other people's writing, he also wrote editorials on virtually every subject with care, economy and power. EPW is not a refereed journal. It didn't need to be, not with Krishna Raj in charge. He could debate with the best on most issues, but he chose an anonymous existence, never appearing on television, never granting interviews in print, never signing petitions.

Of all of India's public intellectuals, Krishna Raj was without doubt the most invisible, though arguably the most influential. EPW was his life's passion, his stage and his voice. The journal is what it is because of him, and it is a perfect reflection of his own personality: open, inviting, rigorous, unostentatious, quiet, curious, understated, fiercely independent, forceful.

And his personal integrity was at all times absolutely above the slightest reproach. Even when he turned pro-globalization, he did so not for personal gain - the only individual about whom I can say this - but because he genuinely believed he was right.

Apart from earning for EPW unprecedented stature and goodwill, Krishna Raj also put in place managerial and professional structures - including the ability to raise advertising revenue - that will ensure that EPW will continue to flourish for a long time to come. True to character then, Krishna Raj has ensured that we will not miss him.

But we still will; even those of us who, like me, had minimal personal contact with that gentle, charming man. He touched us all.

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/200...11deshpande.cfm

03-12-2007, 07:44 AM

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /> <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /> <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' />

Commie alert!!

QUOTE
http://www.thehindu.com/2007/03/12/stories...31203811300.htm

Rama cult arose in the South' 
Special Correspondent
Historian traces the origins of the cult to the Vaishnavite saints, AlwarsÂ
Â
FEROKE (KOZHIKODE): Historical evidences are aplenty to show that the Rama cult took birth and evolved in the south, the `Dravida' country, and later got assimilated into the religious psyche of the North, says Suvira Jaiswal, historian.

There are also inscriptional evidences to dismiss the attempt to link the rise of the cult of Rama to `Muslim' invasion of India in the 12th-13th centuries, she says.
Â
In her S. C. Misra Memorial Lecture titled `The Making of a Hegemonic Tradition: The Cult of Rama Dasarathi' delivered at the ongoing 67th Session of the Indian History Congress, Professor Jaiswal said that it was possible to trace the gradual emergence of a full-fledged Rama cult in the Dravida country. The Vaishnavite saints of the south, Alwars sang in praise of the local cult-spots as sanctified by the presence of their favourite deities. This gave scope for the identification of various places as scenes of events associated with the characters of Ramayana and celebration of the existing temples as that of Rama.

Clear evidence of the setting up of shrines for the Rama incarnation of Vishnu was available from the 10th century onwards in the Chola and Pandya kingdoms, which had been the locale of Alwar activities, she said.
Â
Sacred Ayodhya 

Interestingly, the Rama temples were called `sacred Ayodhya,' lending credence to the view that the concept of Ayodhya of Rama was originally mythical, having little to do with modern Ayodhya . ``It reminds one of the famous saying Tulasidas, Avadhu tahaan jahaan Raama nivaasu, meaning ``wherever Rama resides, that is Ayodhya.''
Â
Worshippers of Siva

Although the Chola kings were worshippers of Siva and constructed magnificent Siva temples, several of them assumed titles suggestive of their identification with Rama. For instance, Aditya Chola (AD 871-907), who claimed to have built several Siva temples on the banks of the Cauvery, assumed the title `Kodandarama.' His son Paranthaka I called himself Samgraama Raghavam, i.e; Rama in battle.
Â
The devise of using religious myths and symbols for the glorification of contemporary rulers had a long history in the brahminical tradition and was not exclusive to Ramology.Â <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' />

A thorough weaving of the brahminical philosophy and social ethics into the story of Rama was to be found in the Adhyatma Ramayana, a work assigned to the 14th or early 15th century.
Â
Social message 

Professor Jaiswal said a close connection of the Rama cult with the brahminical social order and its implications were often underplayed by stressing upon its so-called liberating potential, as it opened the path of `bhakti' to all irrespective of caste and gender.

But the entire range of religious literature on Rama-bhakti in the `saguna' stream has a very clear social message: God is universally accessible and grants salvation to all those who worship him with devotion, but he does not allow any violation of caste rules and disrespect to brahmans, regardless of their qualifications.
Â
Respect for caste hierarchy and its rules despite the irrelevance of caste status in the pursuit of liberation had been the essential feature of Vaishnavism from its first exposition in the Bhagavad Gita, Professor Jaiswal said.


Learn more about this commie - Yet another Eminent Historian

Husky · (This post was last modified: 03-12-2007, 11:51 AM by Husky.)

QUOTE(k.ram @ Mar 12 2007, 07:44 AM)<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' />Â <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' />Â <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' />
Commie alert!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
http://www.thehindu.com/2007/03/12/stories...31203811300.htm
Rama cult arose in the South' Learn more about this commie - Yet another Eminent Historian[right][snapback]65511[/snapback][/right]</div>
k.ram, the reds just don't know what to do about Rama being documented all over Ancient India. Since they find they can no longer say he was from Afghanistan or that he was some alien Oryan when his records in S India are very ancient, they have to say Rama was first 'manufactured' in the South by some 'brahminicals' - this, they argue, gave rise to (note new communist term Smile

'Ramology'.
(In reality such terms are applicable only to christoism: Jeebology is of course christianity, and the scribinicals, priestinicals and the later parsonilicals are the people who developed this mythology called jeebology.)

In reality, reverence of Rama arose during Ramar's lifetime and thereafter. Since then, people all over Ancient India have followed him. That is why temples dedicated to him have been erected at the sacred sites where Rama has lived or has passed by in his journey to Lanka.

Communists don't like the truth, so they create increasingly convoluted lies to explain the data. (Much like WitSSel and his indological precursors.) Occam's Razor is lost on communists, who after the christoislamists, are the most anti-science people in the world. It also explains why they want Rama's Bridge broken, at least that's one annoying historical remnant that they could get rid of.

They're afraid of Rama whose signs are everywhere. But how can this be, when their own communist history books don't even mention him as having been a historical character? This Rama keeps appearing everywhere when he's not supposed to have existed! Quite the opposite of jeebus - who the >1 billion christoterrorists proclaim was historical - yet not a single bit of admissable, untampered evidence to support him.
Communists needn't worry about the ever-present Rama hounding their history books and false articles, missionaries promise that non-existent jeebus will save them. They need to go live with missionaries where they'll be in good company: liars belong with liars.

03-21-2007, 12:31 AM

Francois Gautier: The truth about Aurangzeb
QUOTE
People might say: 'OK, this is all true, Aurangzeb was indeed a monster, but why rake up the past, when we have tensions between Muslims and Hindus today?' There are two reasons for this exhibition. The first is that no nation can move forward unless its children are taught to look squarely at their own history, the good and the bad, the evil and the pure. The French, for instance, have many dark periods in their history, more recently some of the deeds they did during colonisation in North Africa or how they collaborated with the Nazis during the Second World War and handed over French Jews who died in concentration camps (the French are only now coming to terms with it).

The argument that looking at one's history will pit a community against the other does not hold either: French Catholics and Protestants, who share a very similar religion, fought each other bitterly. Catholics brutally murdered thousands of Protestants in the 18th century; yet today they live peacefully next to each other. France fought three wars with Germany in the last 150 years, yet they are great friends today.

Let Hindus and Muslims then come to terms with what happened under Aurangzeb, because Muslims suffered as much as Hindus. It was not only Shah Jahan or Dara Shikoh who were murdered, but also the forefathers of today's Indian Muslims who have been converted at 90 per cent. Aurangzeb was the Hitler, the asura of medieval India. No street is named after Hitler in the West, yet in New Delhi we have Aurangzeb Road, a constant reminder of the horrors Aurangzeb perpetrated against Indians, including his own people.

Finally, Aurangzeb is very relevant today because he thought that Sunni Islam was the purest form of his religion and he sought to impose it with ruthless efficiency -- even against those of his own faith, such as his brother. Aurangzeb clamped down on the more syncretic, more tolerant Islam, of the Sufi kind, which then existed in India. But he did not fully succeed. Four centuries later, is he going to have the last word? I remember, when I started covering Kashmir in the late '70s, that Islam had a much more open face. The Kashmir Muslim, who is also a descendant of converted Hindus, might have thought that Allah was the only true God, but he accepted his Kashmiri Pandit neighbour, went to his or her marriage, ate in his or her house and the Hindu in turn went to the mosque. Women used to walk with open faces, watch TV, films.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 03-21-2007, 11:06 PM by Bodhi.)

QUOTEyet in New Delhi we have Aurangzeb Road

I always thought that Muslims don't name their sons after Aurangzeb, much like you wouldn't come across a Hindu named Ravana (or even Vibhishana).

But I was wrong. I came across a cab-driver named Aurangzeb, very proud of his name given by his parents. He was from POK. And I learnt about Naxal supporting Gauri Lankesh.

QUOTEAurangzeb is very relevant today because he thought that Sunni Islam was the purest form of his religion 

Wasn't Aurangzeb a Shia?

Bharatvarsh · 03-21-2007, 09:03 AM

QUOTEWasn't Aurangzeb a Shia? 
No Aurangzeb was an orthodox sunni who hated shias as infidels, one of the reasons for his hatred for the Deccani sultanates was that they were ruled by shias.

**acharya** · 04-12-2007, 02:18 AM

But sometimes it makes me wonder why we(HINDU) yearn for a pat on our back.

Quote:
As in 'convert', or as in 'rectify/ignore the objectionable parts' ?

There is a significant difference between the two.

Yes I agree there is a difference between the two, and my intent was on the later. As long as the Muslim or Christian presents no direct or indirect harm to my way of life, or does not seek to change it in the future, I have no problems them mocking at my way of life or revered deities in the private of his house. If the person mocks in public, then I expect the right to mock his belief in public too. If he is going to break my deities, then I need the law and society to allow me to break his deity too.

Quote:QUOTE
The usual Muslim and Christian narrative is that it is THEY that brought the light of civilisation to the barbarian, demoniacal Hindus, and that Hindu converts simply saw the light of egalitarian liberators, and converted en masse.


So are they stopping us Hindus from giving an explanation or rightfully addressing the points in the public domain? If they are doing that then we have one more point in our case. It is not that I do not perceive a threat, it is just that in our own interest I would like us to have as strong case as possible. And stopping to question ourselves can be construed to be disruptive.

05-03-2007, 07:25 PM

A while back someone had posted in this thread (or it's previous avatar), some comments about how our Laloo Yadav has made it into class textbooks.
Bihar govt suspends Lalu's biographer
QUOTENarayan wrote the railway minister's biography titled Mitti ke Gaurav in the 1990s. A portion of the biography was included in a Class 8 textbook by the Bihar Secondary School Board during the RJD rule.

The book described Lalu Prasad as a mass leader and a anmol ratan (priceless jewel) who has been the 'prime source of inspiration for the socially-backward and under-privileged classes of Bihar.'


Probabily because Lalloo had kept Narayan on the gravy-train
QUOTENarayan has been charged with flouting quota norms and other government rules in allocating 12 PDS shops in 1996 and 17 in 1997 when Lalu was Bihar chief minister.

He was also charged with giving maternity benefits on fictitious names like 11 to those who had more than two children and one over 75 years of age.

During the last assembly elections in the state in 2005, the Election Commission had shunted him out from poll duty as a returning officer after some political parties reportedly objected to his posting.

05-16-2007, 07:30 PM

NCERT text books online:
http://www.ncert.nic.in/textbooks/testing/Index.htm

**acharya** · 06-09-2007, 01:08 AM

http://churumuri.wordpress.com/2007/06/08/...ve-sl-bhyrappa/

QUOTE
Controversially, the best-selling author says Indiaâs social harmony, which his critics accuse him of seeking to destroy through the book, is âsuperficial, artificial, and therefore not permanent.â

Â Â âThe kind of harmony you are speaking, since independence, does it exist? It doesnât exist because you are starting on a false foundation. Most of our Constitution framers were Hindus, most of them were upper class. Alladi Krishnawamy Iyer, K.M. Munshi. Babu Rajendra Prasad, C. Rajagopalachari. All of them unanimously abolished untouchability, saying that those who practice it should be prosecuted and jailed, that Dalits should be given special privileges, and those those who intermarried with Dalits should be given special incentives.

Â Â âThat means, they (the Hindus) realised the mistakes in our society which was historically practised and tried to rectify it. Have Muslims tried to do overcome their mistakes? The Hindus have clearly realised that untouchability and social inequalities were practised from certain points in our history. We are open about it and we are ashamed of it. Have the Muslims realised what they have done is wrong and what is the source of what they have done?

Â Â âThe source of what they have done is in their sacred religious texts. Now, are they prepared to go back to it and say these are the portions which we want to disown? Till they are prepared to do that, this social harmony is based on false foundation. Therefore to say that just because a certain truth is spoken, to say that it disturbs social harmonyâ¦ for how long can you live with the delusion of building social harmony under false foundation.

Â Â âYou must have the freedom to criticise every religion in the world: Judaism, Christianity, Shintosim, Hinduism, etc etc. Now to say you have every freedom to criticise different streams of Hinduism or Christianity, but you should not speak anything Islam, shut upâ¦ when you come to that point, is that fair? Progress is possible only when there is free criticism, which the western people have reached.â

Also read: S.L. Bhyrappa versus U.R. Anantha Murthy



QUOTE

many many thanks for the video. this quality, this length talks only independent media sans market considerations can bring. thanks for keeping the zoom & pan still for the most part. Perhaps, the haNe shot, can be your signature shot. The video presented without interfering in what we were seeing. In the background there was a bird chirping away at some thing. Perhaps, metaphorically.

Who has the problem? Does politics (academia, media, intelligencia apart from political parties) have a problem with multi religious society, or is it that multi religious society itself has an internal problem of livability (is it hard for people of different religions to interact in day to day life)?

perhaps you could have pointed out to bhyrappa that the actual, at-ground social harmony in India, even if influenced by politics, is not a result of the politics. Hindu muslim interaction in India precedes independence, modern politics, & even marx. And that basic interaction is perhaps driven by practicality & humanity & is for most part not incumbent upon historical truth. One does not think of aurangajeb when dealing with a neighbor of 60 years in a vaTaara even in the heart of the most communally sensitive city in the whole of SI. So what then does bhyrappa mean by saying that indiaâs social harmony is not permanent?

On the other hand is a multireligious society a problem to our politics? Is it really a problem for our politics to carry all religions equally? Is the change in hindu fold internal or is it that the political system could initiate & carry those changes far more easily wrt hinduism than others? Why does the political system not initiate or hesitate to initiate these changes in other religions? Why has the politics become so skewed that look alikes of anti humanists of the worst kind are paraded in political rallies with support from all & sundry? How can you talk of secularism, humanism, multiculturism without even question the vulgarity & indecency of propaganda & conversion?

Login




Remember me Lost Password?