10-24-2006, 05:58 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->if bengal is the first to fall to mughalistan its cos of immigration, cos of 1971 genocide and cos of 150 years of all out colonialisation resulting in famines. the "bride burning" states are not bordered by any muslim country, nor had to go through partition.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, differential fertility between Hindus and Muslims was the main reason for parititon of Bengal and it is differential fertility that will again make them take over WB, not illegal infiltration alone.
All of these self piteous sob stories are not really helpful, even Punjab had to go through many of these things.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->greater population groiwth indicates nothing, certainly not progress. had that been true then south east asia would be more progressive than western europe<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lesser population does not indicate progress either as you will find out when Muslims take over Europe and WB.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->as for the reduced population growth in bengal, that was badly needed. our small state supports the hindu population of bengal as well as bangladesh and million more muslims and illegals. i think we are the most densely populated state. that would happen to any state remember - what if all the hindus of uttarpradesh were shoved into uttaranchal?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If they all get pushed into Uttaranchal, they would live in crazily cramped conditions but they would still live, not get kicked out.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i want evidence that british introcuded dowry system. and if they did - how come there is no dowry in the state that should have it most (supposing it was the british).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am sure they didn't teach this in the progressive circles of WB where it's always progressive to lay blame on Hindus and Hindu culture for everything wrong with India.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->While dowry has long been seen as a despicable social custom responsible for the killing of women in India, a New York historian has traced the phenomenon to influences of the British colonial period.
In her book, Dowry Murder: The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime, Veena Talwar Oldenburg argues that laws effected by the British, while on the one hand brought economic upheaval, on the other they transformed what was till then a safety net for women into a pathology. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->How did dowry get absorbed into Indian culture?
Culture grows out of pressure from the political. If you think of culture as frozen and static, then we are barking up the wrong tree. But if you look at the idea of culture as dynamic and reconstituting itself with social and economic pressures, then we can start to think of what happened. So I looked at the colonial period. And plenty happened that changed the idea of dowry.
The reason I am not saying it was the same from Manu to pre-colonial times is because there is very little place to find it. What I found was descriptions of what it was just before the British took over, and what it became. I am only talking about that juncture.
The colonial construction of women looked like they were helping women. What I argue is they made it worse. I talk about the collusion of Punjabi patriarchy with colonial patriarchy, creating an even more hidebound structure of rights, or the absence of rights, of women. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->How did it happen in a country like India, where we worship the goddess, or Shakti?
In the Punjab (where Oldenburg's research is based), they worship Lakshmi, Durga and Saraswati. But the construction of women over time has declined. We still have those strengths, but the political economy has become so masculine that the place of women in society has shrunk. I have been able to explain the changes that occurred in the colonial period -- very deeply documented. The time you would think that some progress was made, I am arguing for the opposite. There seems to be a loss of women's rights in the use of land.
How did the colonialists effect these changes?
They brought in the notion of private property rights in land, and replaced communal or joint rights. That's the key. Land becomes alienable, as property is. Earlier, you just defended land. For instance, there is a flood in Bihar. People move. They become landless.
But you didn't go into the market and say 'I have got two acres. You give me cash.' Not till you had a title to the land. The British gave titles to the tillers, and land became a commodity. Women did not get titles to the land.
That's why I said property rights and the alienability of land is possibly the greatest social revolution that the British brought, far greater than banning sati. We keep banning things. We learnt from them. Dowry ban kar do. What big difference does that make?
http://www.countercurrents.org/gender-oldenberg7403.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->you know, sitting as you do (protected from islamic hounds) on the other end of india and also not having suffered a cent of the colonisation or famines that bengal had to go through, its easy for you to laugh at the problems others have thanks to their islamic/colonial history.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know sitting as you do in your progressive WB and writing nonsense about other states will not save you from the loving treatment your Muslim brothers will give you once they take over, then all you progressives will run to our backward states only.
And whose fault is it that we had Islamic rule or colonisation, I don't wallow in self pity like a loser and neither did Punjabis who went through much worse during Parititon but look at Punjab today.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i am the one who keeps uses the "sati" and "bride burning" bit most often - but having travelled the length and breath of the so called "bimaru belt" and knowing a bit of (hindu) indian history, i know better than most, that its the same "backward states" which were once the best in india. uttar pradesh, like it or not, was and still is the cradle of hinduism. both bihar and madhya pradesh were states which produced the vast majority of hindu astronomy and academics. they were the ones most hammered by islam and also least "pulled out" by westernisation. if afghanistan was located in sri lanka then bihar would not be so backward. similar is the case with bengal - it was very prosperous and then some, even during the muslim nabab days. you can check this out yourself - bengal being both a coastal/sea-trading state and sitting on the most fertile piece of land in the planet (the only soil that can produce 3 crops a year), always had a high degree of prosperity. but then the same land got the brunt of the colonial hammer and suffered famines of astronomical proportions and then a genocide second to only the jewish holocaust in the last century and thus now struggles to make ends meet. historical and geographical circumstance can play havoc.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All this has nothing at all to do with the prime reason why Bengal will be lost, differential fertility, plain and simple.
Wrong, differential fertility between Hindus and Muslims was the main reason for parititon of Bengal and it is differential fertility that will again make them take over WB, not illegal infiltration alone.
All of these self piteous sob stories are not really helpful, even Punjab had to go through many of these things.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->greater population groiwth indicates nothing, certainly not progress. had that been true then south east asia would be more progressive than western europe<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lesser population does not indicate progress either as you will find out when Muslims take over Europe and WB.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->as for the reduced population growth in bengal, that was badly needed. our small state supports the hindu population of bengal as well as bangladesh and million more muslims and illegals. i think we are the most densely populated state. that would happen to any state remember - what if all the hindus of uttarpradesh were shoved into uttaranchal?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If they all get pushed into Uttaranchal, they would live in crazily cramped conditions but they would still live, not get kicked out.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i want evidence that british introcuded dowry system. and if they did - how come there is no dowry in the state that should have it most (supposing it was the british).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am sure they didn't teach this in the progressive circles of WB where it's always progressive to lay blame on Hindus and Hindu culture for everything wrong with India.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->While dowry has long been seen as a despicable social custom responsible for the killing of women in India, a New York historian has traced the phenomenon to influences of the British colonial period.
In her book, Dowry Murder: The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime, Veena Talwar Oldenburg argues that laws effected by the British, while on the one hand brought economic upheaval, on the other they transformed what was till then a safety net for women into a pathology. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->How did dowry get absorbed into Indian culture?
Culture grows out of pressure from the political. If you think of culture as frozen and static, then we are barking up the wrong tree. But if you look at the idea of culture as dynamic and reconstituting itself with social and economic pressures, then we can start to think of what happened. So I looked at the colonial period. And plenty happened that changed the idea of dowry.
The reason I am not saying it was the same from Manu to pre-colonial times is because there is very little place to find it. What I found was descriptions of what it was just before the British took over, and what it became. I am only talking about that juncture.
The colonial construction of women looked like they were helping women. What I argue is they made it worse. I talk about the collusion of Punjabi patriarchy with colonial patriarchy, creating an even more hidebound structure of rights, or the absence of rights, of women. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->How did it happen in a country like India, where we worship the goddess, or Shakti?
In the Punjab (where Oldenburg's research is based), they worship Lakshmi, Durga and Saraswati. But the construction of women over time has declined. We still have those strengths, but the political economy has become so masculine that the place of women in society has shrunk. I have been able to explain the changes that occurred in the colonial period -- very deeply documented. The time you would think that some progress was made, I am arguing for the opposite. There seems to be a loss of women's rights in the use of land.
How did the colonialists effect these changes?
They brought in the notion of private property rights in land, and replaced communal or joint rights. That's the key. Land becomes alienable, as property is. Earlier, you just defended land. For instance, there is a flood in Bihar. People move. They become landless.
But you didn't go into the market and say 'I have got two acres. You give me cash.' Not till you had a title to the land. The British gave titles to the tillers, and land became a commodity. Women did not get titles to the land.
That's why I said property rights and the alienability of land is possibly the greatest social revolution that the British brought, far greater than banning sati. We keep banning things. We learnt from them. Dowry ban kar do. What big difference does that make?
http://www.countercurrents.org/gender-oldenberg7403.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->you know, sitting as you do (protected from islamic hounds) on the other end of india and also not having suffered a cent of the colonisation or famines that bengal had to go through, its easy for you to laugh at the problems others have thanks to their islamic/colonial history.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know sitting as you do in your progressive WB and writing nonsense about other states will not save you from the loving treatment your Muslim brothers will give you once they take over, then all you progressives will run to our backward states only.
And whose fault is it that we had Islamic rule or colonisation, I don't wallow in self pity like a loser and neither did Punjabis who went through much worse during Parititon but look at Punjab today.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i am the one who keeps uses the "sati" and "bride burning" bit most often - but having travelled the length and breath of the so called "bimaru belt" and knowing a bit of (hindu) indian history, i know better than most, that its the same "backward states" which were once the best in india. uttar pradesh, like it or not, was and still is the cradle of hinduism. both bihar and madhya pradesh were states which produced the vast majority of hindu astronomy and academics. they were the ones most hammered by islam and also least "pulled out" by westernisation. if afghanistan was located in sri lanka then bihar would not be so backward. similar is the case with bengal - it was very prosperous and then some, even during the muslim nabab days. you can check this out yourself - bengal being both a coastal/sea-trading state and sitting on the most fertile piece of land in the planet (the only soil that can produce 3 crops a year), always had a high degree of prosperity. but then the same land got the brunt of the colonial hammer and suffered famines of astronomical proportions and then a genocide second to only the jewish holocaust in the last century and thus now struggles to make ends meet. historical and geographical circumstance can play havoc.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All this has nothing at all to do with the prime reason why Bengal will be lost, differential fertility, plain and simple.