When Did India Become Modern

ramana · 12-01-2006, 08:07 PM

kram. Rousseau's book is called the Social Contract. It is not social contract theory.

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 12-01-2006, 11:35 PM by acharya.)

QUOTE(digvijay @ Nov 30 2006, 08:08 PM)
Acharya,
Â Above clearly shows there was coherence amongst our kings and they had a common grudge against the muslims. It is not merely a stmnt as this is how exactly it happened. A foreign invader was considered some one to be defeated.Â Everyone is fighting the same muslims to defeat them and they did it quite well on account of which we still have majority Hindu India. So how is a central political front lacking here?

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61597[/snapback][/right]


I agree with that information. They were fighitng to defeat the foriegn invaders in medieval times at every region and place. They defeated the muslim enemy and recovered the kingdoms. But they did not destroy the political center of the Muslim invaders.

What I am saying is that there is a center of gravity of political center. That center has to be destroyed to defeat the political power. For Muslim invaders the center of gravity is in the core muslim army. The political and military power center resides in the same group in the Muslim society.

To defeat the outside power Hindu monarchy/power had to kill all Muslims in the political center in medieval times. It means killing all the family members of the Muslim elite and killing all the foreign muslims in the land during that period. Between 900-1300 AD Hindu kings could have killed all the foreign Muslims in the land.
This was not done.

For this to be done Hindu political center during 1000AD should have coordinated in all the regions to destroy all traces of foreign invasion including their palaces.Convert all the muslims back to Hindus and make sure that Hindu political power remain strong and never fragments.

In 1857 The British killed the members of Bahadur Shah Mughal heir and banished him to Burma so that there is no trace of the Mughal empire in India. There is a reason for this.

12-02-2006, 12:01 AM

QUOTE(k.ram @ Nov 30 2006, 07:54 AM)The fundamental, and perhaps a truer basis of unity (identity) than any modern definitions such as a national, political, linguistic, race/ethnicity based sentiment was always there In India. It is to be found in a common intellectual heritage, having ebbs and flows, yet persisting through an unbroken tradition thats moulds even when modified, permeating India's whole social life to the minutest detail. It is the sanatana dharma which lies at the root of all the various forms of expressions of Indians and it is all inclusive.

For thousands of years India has been one, not merely in a geographical sense, but in religion, civilization, and customs. India has always felt herself to be an integral whole from the Himalayas to Lanka. The sentiment of unity, consciouness and identity has found expression in ancient songs and traditions - vedas to unpanishads to darsanas to panchatantra to aagamas to bhajans to what not and you get the drift. That has always been the national consciousness, and identity, if one can call that.

As for the modern awakening out of slumber and intellectual & social corruption, and when at the verge of perishing, and I quote Ashok's message

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE"Modernity" in the truest sense of the word, in India's affairs, starts when hindus awoke after a centuries long slumber. This should properly be identified with the so called "Hindu Renaissance of the late 19th century and early 20th century. All other definitions of modernity are non-Indian definitions and to their view of what they consider modern.


The modern defintions of nation-state and forms of nationalism, ramana and acharya have spoken quite eloquently to those. As far the interpretation and study of Indian history, HH's posting warns of the dangers in it. Hence the framework for such interpretive studies. Otherwise the comparative studies will slide into something else. For ancient democratic traditions of India, I will defer you to read shantiparva of mahabharatha (for example, and off the top of my head about duties of rajan, ganatantra, etc). All in Bhisma's teaching to Yudhishtara. Someone I know may write an article on just that.
[right][snapback]61551[/snapback][/right]
</div>

There were so many posts each with different strands of the discussion topic, that it took me some time to decide how to go forward.

kram, at present I'll not be commenting on the cultural unity and a national sense throughout the ages for it will be an altogether important discussion on its own. Also I have to better understand and think on the above.

Lets look at political unity, for that is clearly one thing we have had as a "modern" nation that maybe we have had only at certain times our history. It has only been sporadic. So maybe one part of discussing how or when India became modern is to study this political unity aspect.

As I see this political unity thing or a political center etc. has been cited in postings of different authors as a part of this disccusion. So what is political unity, or more clearly when can we say that we are politically united and what is its link to present day modern India. In other words to what extent has political unity gone to shape the form and fortunes of modern India.

I think at this point of time we need to get a consensus on our terminology.
Regards terminology, let me put an idea of modern, which can be a starting point and will agree to all of us. For as Hauma Hamidha has righlty said that can be a source of confusion and miscommunication. Let us not add any connotations to modern presently.

At present let modern mean just that it is a different India we see today and live in today than what was there during the medieval times. I think that is a safe starting point. All regions of the world have changed enormously in the past one or two centuries. Even a country like China, which also has an old culture and an ancient sense of national consiousness has changed. So this very basic definition for present I think will be agreeable to all of us. In this sense modern is just a term, we can even replace it with A or 1 or (i). It has simply no connotations to it. In fact this also leaves it open to discussion whether any major change happened at all or not. So you need not necessarily agree with the change theory.

Now the questions such as what is different in today's India, whether its progress or regress i.e. change for the better or worse, more importantly what are the factors can help us determine what makes modern all of these are subjects of discussion.

Coming back to political unity aspect, I think what definitely marks a difference is the extent of political unity that we see in present day India. But again let us be clear what political unity means. I believe instead of looking at "political unity" in black and white (i.e to say that either it is there or not there), let us consider a continuum of the condition of political unity in a state. At one end of this continuum a state is totally disunited for e.g. with disparate states, no centralization whatsoever etc. at the other end it is highly politically united. The reason I make this input is so that we can differentiate between the political unity during Mauryan or Guptan times or during the Mughal time with the political unity of present day India. I believe that modern day India is far highly politically united compared to any of these previous instances. Now in this case, we have to deliberate on the following points:
1. What exactly politcal unity means. What are its effects. What are the parameters to decide and judge the extent of political unity. This will help us determine the two ends of the political unity continuum
2. What factors cause or encourage political unity or disunity or in other words the centirfugal or centripetal forces

I think we have come back a full circle to the beginning of the discussion, maybe this all will end up with a question "Is India really modern" <!--emo& Big Grin

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

12-02-2006, 05:22 AM

QUOTE(ramana @ Dec 1 2006, 08:07 PM)kram. Rousseau's book is called the Social Contract. It is not social contract theory.
[right][snapback]61603[/snapback][/right]


ramana, I realize that. It is one among few social contract theories, and the book is social contract, as you point out. Hobbes, Locke, Rawls and few others too have their theories. That is how I understand it. Is it wrong? nyways, I will find a copy of that in the library <!--emo& Smile

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

Social Contract Theories & Theorists

12-02-2006, 09:14 AM

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 2 2006, 12:01 AM)
Coming back to political unity aspect, I think what definitely marks a difference is the extent of political unity that we see in present day India. But again let us be clear what political unity means. I believe instead of looking at "political unity" in black and white (i.e to say that either it is there or not there), let us consider a continuum of the condition of political unity in a state. At one end of this continuum a state is totally disunited for e.g. with disparate states, no centralization whatsoever etc. at the other end it is highly politically united. The reason I make this input is so that we can differentiate between the political unity during Mauryan or Guptan times or during the Mughal time with the political unity of present day India. I believe that modern day India is far highly politically united compared to any of these previous instances. Now in this case, we have to deliberate on the following points:
1. What exactly politcal unity means. What are its effects. What are the parameters to decide and judge the extent of political unity. This will help us determine the two ends of the political unity continuum
2. What factors cause or encourage political unity or disunity or in other words the centirfugal or centripetal forces

I think we have come back a full circle to the beginning of the discussion, maybe this all will end up with a question "Is India really modern"Â <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />
[right][snapback]61620[/snapback][/right]


All (political unity ) depends on the purpose of it - of the individual as well as collective (society), circumstances that drive it, motivations/drivers to achieve unity. Mauryan period's unity is going to be different than political unity during mughal times so on and so forth. India is unique, in terms of synthesis of traditional and contemporary, and of course with confusion over the all the said issues - the purpose, the drivers, the motivators and the indicators ergo all muddled results and effects. Now, where do we go from here... <!--emo& Big Grin

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

12-02-2006, 12:48 PM

QUOTE(k.ram @ Dec 2 2006, 09:14 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 2 2006, 12:01 AM)
Coming back to political unity aspect, I think what definitely marks a difference is the extent of political unity that we see in present day India. But again let us be clear what political unity means. I believe instead of looking at "political unity" in black and white (i.e to say that either it is there or not there), let us consider a continuum of the condition of political unity in a state. At one end of this continuum a state is totally disunited for e.g. with disparate states, no centralization whatsoever etc. at the other end it is highly politically united. The reason I make this input is so that we can differentiate between the political unity during Mauryan or Guptan times or during the Mughal time with the political unity of present day India. I believe that modern day India is far highly politically united compared to any of these previous instances. Now in this case, we have to deliberate on the following points:
1. What exactly politcal unity means. What are its effects. What are the parameters to decide and judge the extent of political unity. This will help us determine the two ends of the political unity continuum
2. What factors cause or encourage political unity or disunity or in other words the centirfugal or centripetal forces

I think we have come back a full circle to the beginning of the discussion, maybe this all will end up with a question "Is India really modern"Â <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />
[right][snapback]61620[/snapback][/right]


All (political unity ) depends on the purpose of it - of the individual as well as collective (society), circumstances that drive it, motivations/drivers to achieve unity. Mauryan period's unity is going to be different than political unity during mughal times so on and so forth. India is unique, in terms of synthesis of traditional and contemporary, and of course with confusion over the all the said issues - the purpose, the drivers, the motivators and the indicators ergo all muddled results and effects. Now, where do we go from here... <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />
[right][snapback]61635[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Lets first look at what are the differences between a politically united state and one which is not, so that we determine the two poles so to speak. Lets consider the most politically united period. I believe India of today is that and most politically disparate period. Since we don't want a lot of time gap so as to negate influence of other factors, we will consider India of 18th century as the example.

Or you can compare Harsha's period or Gupta's period with the period of disunity immediately following these reigns or with India of 10th-12th centuries. What are these differences. Maybe that will give us some clue.

You have mentioned indivudaul/collective, circumstances, motivations etc. all these are factors that encourage or discourage political unity. Lets first look at how political unity is different from political disunity.

12-02-2006, 10:07 PM

QUOTE(acharya @ Dec 1 2006, 11:27 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Nov 30 2006, 08:08 PM)
Acharya,
Â Above clearly shows there was coherence amongst our kings and they had a common grudge against the muslims. It is not merely a stmnt as this is how exactly it happened. A foreign invader was considered some one to be defeated.Â Everyone is fighting the same muslims to defeat them and they did it quite well on account of which we still have majority Hindu India. So how is a central political front lacking here?

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61597[/snapback][/right]


I agree with that information. They were fighitng to defeat the foriegn invaders in medieval times at every region and place. They defeated the muslim enemy and recovered the kingdoms. But they did not destroy the political center of the Muslim invaders.
</div>

Acharya,
The key is that it is historically false to assume that Delhi was some sought of a capital of India. It was just another location with a king.

Did you also get a chance to read Herman Kulke's comment? Khilji was supposedly the "second alexander" yet khilji records that his order was barely followed at a distance of 100 KM from Delhi. Beyond that limit he had to use millitary force to get his point across.

http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_a...asions_of_India

So it is really a myth that uptil the demise of sultanate kings i.e till 16th century that Delhi was anything major.

With the advent of Akbar yes Delhi did assume a significant place but that was largely because of a mistake that rajputs comitted by marrying there daughter to Akbar. But this importance of Delhi lasted for slightly more then a century. Even in the last 30 years of Aurangzeb's rule Delhi had lost its supremacy. There were major rebellions in rajasthan and Marathas were tearing up the mughals. Sikhs were emerging as a powerful force in northwest.

So this "centery of gravity" argument hinges on somekind of an all power Islamic capital rooted at Delhi.

QUOTE(acharya @ Dec 1 2006, 11:27 PM)Â
What I am saying is that there is a center of gravity of political center. That center has to be destroyed to defeat the political power. For Muslim invaders the center of gravity is in the core muslim army. The political and military power center resides in the same group in the Muslim society.
To defeat the outside power Hindu monarchy/power had to kill all Muslims in the political center in medieval times. It means killing all the family members of the Muslim elite and killing all the foreign muslims in the land during that period.Â Between 900-1300 AD Hindu kings could have killed all the foreign Muslims in the land.
This was not done.


You have to realise this was a replenishable source which kept filling up from west of Indian borders. No matter how many Hindus accounted for more would come from central asia/Iran/Iraq/Africa/Arabia/Afghanistan etc.

To gain a complete victory we had to go on an offensive in these lands.

QUOTE(acharya @ Dec 1 2006, 11:27 PM)

For this to be done Hindu political center during 1000AD should have coordinated in all the regions to destroy all traces of foreign invasion including their palaces.Convert all the muslims back to Hindus and make sure that Hindu political power remain strong and never fragments.



There is a slight problem. What do you do with the converted? Ordinary Hindus would not intermarry with the converted beef eaters.

QUOTE(acharya @ Dec 1 2006, 11:27 PM)In 1857 The British killed the members of Bahadur Shah Mughal heir and banished him to Burma so that there is no trace of the Mughal empire in India. There is a reason for this.
[right][snapback]61616[/snapback][/right]


Mughals were irrelevant in 1857.

-Digvijay

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 12-04-2006, 09:20 AM by acharya.)

QUOTEAcharya,
The key is that it is historically false to assume that Delhi was some sought of a capital of India. It was just another location with a king.

So it is really a myth that uptil the demise of sultanate kings i.e till 16th century that Delhi was anything major.

With the advent of Akbar yes Delhi did assume a significant place but that was largely because of a mistake that rajputs comitted by marrying there daughter to Akbar.

So this "centery of gravity" argument hinges on somekind of an all power Islamic capital rooted at Delhi.

Center of gravity of political center has NOTHING to do with CITY or a place or a region.
Center of gravity of the political center has to do with the social group which forms the political center or within an army. The center of gravity could be in many cities - Delhi, Agra, Lucknow, Lahore or Peshawar.
For the Mughal army the Mughal sultan and nobles in various cities formed the political center and the core mughal army of Muslim army was the military power. That formed the center of gravity of the power. In Muslim societies power resides in the core military force and it is also the political center.

<b>
For the Mughal dynasty the Mughal sultan and his family and all the nobles in the Mughal court forms the political center and they need to be killed to wipe out the Mughal rule. The core elite Mughal army consisted of Turks and Afghan Muslims. That core Mughal army force had to be killed to remove the center of gravity of the Mughal power</b> and make sure that the ability to raise finance for raising the army is removed from the Hindu financial communities.

This would have effectively put an end to Mughal empire.

The Hindu kingdoms had to identify this Muslim groups to remove them from the seat of power.

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 12-04-2006, 10:18 PM by acharya.)

QUOTEYou have to realise this was a replenishable source which kept filling up from west of Indian borders. No matter how many Hindus accounted for more would come from central asia/Iran/Iraq/Africa/Arabia/Afghanistan etc.

To gain a complete victory we had to go on an offensive in these lands.


This is true. The source of the invaders were from outside the geographic boundaries of India.
The Hindu Monarchy had to send army and spies to those countries to understand the behavior of muslim nations in the medieval periods and understand their political and military power. Then they had to plan on sending an army and killing those political center in those muslim nations. That is how the threats to a kingdom, civilization is removed.

It may have taken centuries to achieve this but they had to keep the focus and plan alive to make it happen.

THIS WAS NOT DONE

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 12-04-2006, 11:53 PM by acharya.)

QUOTEMughals were irrelevant in 1857.

-Digvijay

It did not matter if the Mughals were irrelevant. The muslim people had revolted in the name of the Moghul sultan and this had to be removed once for all so that there is no more political center to fight for.

Mughal Muslim Monarchy represented the political center and many princes owed their allegiance to that center. By removing that center Maratha empire between 1707 to 1803 could have created a Hindu political center for the entire Indian subcontinent.

This period was a period of time when the British had not established themselves in India.
Hindu kingdoms and Sikh kigdom could have created a Hindu monarchy for the entire country.

THIS WAS NOT DONE

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 12-06-2006, 09:40 AM by acharya.)

QUOTEThere is a slight problem. What do you do with the converted? Ordinary Hindus would not intermarry with the converted beef eaters.

For the survival of your religion and civilization and way of life anything is done. If you can die for it then you can accept a converted person back into Hindu religion.

The keep the number in your kind increasing and making sure the enemy's number decrease is the first form of defense of your civilization in the medieval time.

THIS WAS NOT DONE

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 12-04-2006, 11:19 PM by Bharatvarsh.)

QUOTEThere is a slight problem. What do you do with the converted? Ordinary Hindus would not intermarry with the converted beef eaters.
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:
QUOTE"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
Some more info about this:
QUOTEThe debate concerns Nehru's account of a military defeat suffered by Mahmud in Rajputana after the raid on Somnath.Â Nehru based this on a very late source, a 19th-century Persian history of Junagarh and Saurashtra, the Tarikh-i Sorath,Â 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.Â 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:Â 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
This is a very late chronicle and hence not reliable but it does show that the concept of reconversion was not alien to Hindus.

12-05-2006, 01:02 AM

QUOTE(acharya @ Dec 4 2006, 08:53 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEAcharya,
The key is that it is historically false to assume that Delhi was some sought of a capital of India. It was just another location with a king.

So it is really a myth that uptil the demise of sultanate kings i.e till 16th century that Delhi was anything major.

With the advent of Akbar yes Delhi did assume a significant place but that was largely because of a mistake that rajputs comitted by marrying there daughter to Akbar.

So this "centery of gravity" argument hinges on somekind of an all power Islamic capital rooted at Delhi.

Center of gravity of political center has NOTHING to do with CITY or a place or a region.
Center of gravity of the political center has to do with the social group which forms the political center or within an army. The center of gravity could be in many cities - Delhi, Agra, Lucknow, Lahore or Peshawar.
For the Mughal army the Mughal sultan and nobles in various cities formed the political center and the core mughal army of Muslim army was the military power. That formed the center of gravity of the power. In Muslim societies power resides in the core military force and it is also the political center.

<b>
For the Mughal dynasty the Mughal sultan and his family and all the nobles in the Mughal court forms the political center and they need to be killed to wipe out the Mughal rule. The core elite Mughal army consisted of Turks and Afghan Muslims. That core Mughal army force had to be killed to remove the center of gravity of the Mughal power</b> and make sure that the ability to raise finance for raising the army is removed from the Hindu financial communities.

This would have effectively put an end to Mughal empire.

The Hindu kingdoms had to identify this Muslim groups to remove them from the seat of power.
[right][snapback]61683[/snapback][/right]
</div>
What you write is a noble goal. The complete extinguishing of Muslims could not take place because most of the Indian states were of lesser economic means compared to the muslims. The wars were fought with lop sided armies i.e Hindus were mostly outnumbered (though muslim historians always record that hindus had Lakhs and muslims had thousands on the battlefield which is of course rubbish. This is the battle of Badr phenomena i.e to rouse the jihaadis you have to tell them that Allah helps you even if you have 300 against thousands.).

Why all Hindus did not unite to put up a common front? Multiple reasons. Lack of good leaders at oppurtune times. Bappa Rawal was an excellent leader and rajputs formed a confederacy to defeat Bin Qasim. Similarly Prithviraj Chauhan's banner was a uniting force for rajputs and they overran Ghori. More examples too.

It is far too easy to argue now that why this or that did not happen but one has to place oneself in the medieveal times to understand the magnitude of the situation.

Secondly we somehow also excelled in producing traitors! In a war treachery, if carried out by your men, is almost impossible to defeat.

Now is the situation in India any different today? Is the opinion in North and South consistent on a issue say Kashmir? No.

The Sultanate would have been extinguished in 16th century had Babur not arrived. Do note that Ibrahim Lodi had been defeated by Rana Sanga and Sanga was inching towards Delhi. Even at khanua it took a Silhadi to defeat Sanga.

Even in SherShah's time he escaped by a whisker at Sammel. So attempts were made and due to traitors or our own trust in our men let us down.

Then Akbar the shrewd came to the throne and ushered in a reign where most rajputs decided to not fight him. This was truly the darkest period of our history and thanks are due to Marathas and Sikhs for keeping the banner flying.

Now if British had not ambled in mughals would have been made extinct by Marathas.

And yet again if Sikhs did not have lousy generals, who knew nothing about warfare Sikhs would have routed the Brits in the Anglo Sikh wars. One really has to study these things in great detail to understand what efforts were made and why they did not succeed.

-Digvijay

12-05-2006, 01:05 AM

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 4 2006, 11:00 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEThere is a slight problem. What do you do with the converted? Ordinary Hindus would not intermarry with the converted beef eaters.
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, ......
[right][snapback]61709[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Hello Bharatvarsh,
What you say is correct but some how Hindus are not easy to convince in these matters. Do not get me wrong, Hindus did not mind sleeping with Muslim or any other kind of women but the problem arose with what to do with the children of such unions. Such children invariably did not inherit there father's jaati.

-Digvijay

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 12-05-2006, 04:04 AM by acharya.)

QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 4 2006, 07:32 AM)
What you write is a noble goal. The complete extinguishing of Muslims could not take place because most of the Indian statesÂ were of lesser economic means compared to the muslims.Â

Why all Hindus did not unite to put up a common front? Multiple reasons. Lack of good leaders at oppurtune times.Â

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61711[/snapback][/right]


This is not just a noble goal. This is survival of our civilization and way of life.
It is the structure of our society in the medieval time which made them what they did.

Winning few battles and getting back the kingdoms is not enough.
The plan and the fight to eliminate the enemy in their land is the final goal.

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 12-06-2006, 12:16 AM by Bharatvarsh.)

QUOTEWhat you say is correct but some how Hindus are not easy to convince in these matters. Do not get me wrong, Hindus did not mind sleeping with Muslim or any other kind of women but the problem arose with what to do with the children of such unions. Such children invariably did not inherit there father's jaati.
That maybe the Rajput view but in general the kids inherit the father's jati, that is what happens among many other jatis, Hema Malini is Tamilian but Esha Deol is considered a Jatni, in the Indian context in general a woman takes up her husbands religion in cases of interreligious marriages and their kids will inherit their father's last name.

12-06-2006, 09:21 AM

QUOTEWinning few battles and getting back the kingdoms is not enough.
The plan and the fight to eliminate the enemy in their land is the final goal.


Exactly!

Pakistan is the modern extention of the Islamic Sultanate.
And the core of the Pakistani army are the same Afghans & Turks and the half-Afghan and half-Turk admixtures.

I would rank the Turks as the first rate troops of Islam, followed by the Pakhtoons(Afghans).

They are followed by other third rate troops, namely the converted muslim Rajputs, Jats & Gujjars.

Turks are the ones who have spread Islam the most. Even more than the Arabs.

The fight must be extended beyond Pakistan into Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia & Central Asia.

12-06-2006, 09:23 AM

QUOTEThe keep the number in your kind increasing and making sure the enemy's number decrease is the first form of defense of your civilization in the medieval time.

THIS WAS DONE


Acharya,

Can you give examples of when this was done?
I thought we failed in doing this also.

ramana · 12-06-2006, 09:55 PM

A few links to study and think about especially modernism.

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.html

dhu · (This post was last modified: 12-07-2006, 10:31 AM by dhu.)

in the technological society, jacques ellul states that there are three society types in existence today: america, western europe, and india. he also stated that europe lagged 20 years behind america in the application of technique, especially psychological technique wherein the experience of subjectivity is injected as a part of controllled revolt.. yet he still saw india as another completely independent form of modern society. he wrote this when the so-called "western world" was enamored with China and hardly anyone mentioned india. there is another side to ellul in that he did a u-turn to reembrace catholicism as an expression of subjectivity in a technicized world. it seemed rather peripheral to the arguments he put forth in his three related works (the technological society, the technological bluff, and propaganda), but i think we can conclude from ellul's disparate statements about india.. that the modern technical society requires injection of a subjective opium at all points to prop up the entire edifice, while indian society does not.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?