12-04-2006, 05:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-04-2006, 05:49 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a slight problem. What do you do with the converted? Ordinary Hindus would not intermarry with the converted beef eaters.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it's about time that is changed and it is changing, today you won't just find Indian Hindus, Hindus live all over the world and marry any other Hindu, I myself know a Greek Hindu woman married to an Indian Hindu, even in the medieval period people like Shivaji saw the affects of these foolish beliefs and welcomed back reconverts, infact one of his own daughters was married to the reconvert Balaji Nimbalkar, there was even a smriti written about welcoming back the reconverts during the medieval period, it's another matter that these nonsensical beliefs gained strength and screwed us over the centuries.
The following is an example:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Shah Mahmud took to his heels in dismay and saved his life, but many of his followers of both sexes were captured.... Turk, Afghan and Mughal female prisoners, if they happened to be virgins, were accepted as wives by the Indian soldiers.... The bowels of the others, however, were cleansed by means of emetics and purgatives, and thereafter the captives were married to men of similar rank."
"Low females were joined to low men. Respectable men were compelled to shave off their beards, and were enrolled among the Shekavat and the Wadhel tribes of Rajputs; whilst the lower kinds were allotted to the castes of Kolis, Khantas, Babrias and Mers."7
The Devala Smriti was in active practice.
http://www.hindubooks.org/temples/somanath...mple/page10.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some more info about this:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The debate concerns Nehru's account of a military defeat suffered by Mahmud in Rajputana after the raid on Somnath. Nehru based this on a very late source, a 19th-century Persian history of Junagarh and Saurashtra, the Tarikh-i Sorath, which uses Rajput bardic materials to relate that the victorious Hindu armies divided their Afghan, Turk, and Mughal prisoners according to class and enrolled them into appropriate Hindu castes and tribes. What is odd about Aitzaz's quotation from Nehru's summary is that he only cites the portion that relates how the female prisoners were treated: the virgins among the Afghans, Turks, and Mughals were married by Indian soldiers, but others (probably meaning women of lower rank) were given purges and emetics to cleanse their bowels (a euphemism for abortifacients?) before being married to men of low rank.Â
http://www.unc.edu/~cernst/articles/AITZAZ.DOC<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a very late chronicle and hence not reliable but it does show that the concept of reconversion was not alien to Hindus.
Well it's about time that is changed and it is changing, today you won't just find Indian Hindus, Hindus live all over the world and marry any other Hindu, I myself know a Greek Hindu woman married to an Indian Hindu, even in the medieval period people like Shivaji saw the affects of these foolish beliefs and welcomed back reconverts, infact one of his own daughters was married to the reconvert Balaji Nimbalkar, there was even a smriti written about welcoming back the reconverts during the medieval period, it's another matter that these nonsensical beliefs gained strength and screwed us over the centuries.
The following is an example:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Shah Mahmud took to his heels in dismay and saved his life, but many of his followers of both sexes were captured.... Turk, Afghan and Mughal female prisoners, if they happened to be virgins, were accepted as wives by the Indian soldiers.... The bowels of the others, however, were cleansed by means of emetics and purgatives, and thereafter the captives were married to men of similar rank."
"Low females were joined to low men. Respectable men were compelled to shave off their beards, and were enrolled among the Shekavat and the Wadhel tribes of Rajputs; whilst the lower kinds were allotted to the castes of Kolis, Khantas, Babrias and Mers."7
The Devala Smriti was in active practice.
http://www.hindubooks.org/temples/somanath...mple/page10.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some more info about this:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The debate concerns Nehru's account of a military defeat suffered by Mahmud in Rajputana after the raid on Somnath. Nehru based this on a very late source, a 19th-century Persian history of Junagarh and Saurashtra, the Tarikh-i Sorath, which uses Rajput bardic materials to relate that the victorious Hindu armies divided their Afghan, Turk, and Mughal prisoners according to class and enrolled them into appropriate Hindu castes and tribes. What is odd about Aitzaz's quotation from Nehru's summary is that he only cites the portion that relates how the female prisoners were treated: the virgins among the Afghans, Turks, and Mughals were married by Indian soldiers, but others (probably meaning women of lower rank) were given purges and emetics to cleanse their bowels (a euphemism for abortifacients?) before being married to men of low rank.Â
http://www.unc.edu/~cernst/articles/AITZAZ.DOC<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a very late chronicle and hence not reliable but it does show that the concept of reconversion was not alien to Hindus.