<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Oct 15 2006, 04:02 AM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Oct 15 2006, 04:02 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->We have really deviated from the purpose of this thread. This thread almost looks like the Gandhi ideology thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the impact of assasination of MKG rather then MKG himself.
Having said that here are some writings from some of the men that we admire..
Swami Vivekananda..
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It has been for the good of India that religious preaching in the West has been and will be done. It has ever been my conviction that we shall not be able to rise unless the Western people come to our help. In this country, no appreciation of merit can yet be found, no financial strength, and what is most lamentable of all, there is not a bit, of practicality...I have experienced even in my insignificant life that good motives, sincerity, and infinite love can conquer the world. One single soul possessed of these virtues can destroy the dark designs of millions of hypocrites and brutes...I only want to show that our wellbeing is impossible without men and money coming from the West.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rabindranath Tagore..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Our country having lost its links with the inmost truths of its being, struggled under a crushing load of unreason, in abject slavery to circumstances. In social usage, in politics, in the realm of religion and art, we had entered the zone of uncreative habit, a decadent tradition, and ceased to exercise our humanity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rammohun Roy types were worse. This was the environment and the leaders were definitely the product of their times.
---------------
PS : Guys read the Dharampal thread and his books.
[right][snapback]59117[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why they both were right, especially Vivekananda !!
"It has ever been my conviction that we shall not be able to rise unless the Western people come to our help."
>> TRUE. Thats the sole benifit of the colonial presence in india btw. That they delivered us from islamic darkness. Today our everything from democracy to law to civil servants to science labs to railway lines are of western creation.
"In this country, no appreciation of merit can yet be found, no financial strength, and what is most lamentable of all, there is not a bit, of practicality."
>> SPOT ON. especially the last part where he mentions the indian lack of practicality. Its for precisely that reason (ie. we are not a practical people) that we invent precious little and cant innovate/discover, despite being a very smart people.
After 1000 years of muslim hammering, the India had no financial strength left indeed - not in hindu hands except for some kings like the Wodeyar of Mysore etc.
"I only want to show that our wellbeing is impossible without men and money coming from the West."
>>> true. We could not have had a progressive society if we were still under the muslims. Even to this day the parts of india which are the most backward are the ones which are the most Islamised and/or least Westernised.
TAGORE -
Our country having lost its links with the inmost truths of its being, struggled under a crushing load of unreason, in abject slavery to circumstances. In social usage, in politics, in the realm of religion and art, we had entered the zone of uncreative habit, a decadent tradition, and ceased to exercise our humanity.
>>>
Whoa !! That sums up indian histry under the muslims beautifully.
India till this day hasn't yet recovered her links with her hindu past.
"crushing load of unreason.. abject slavery " - TRUE again. Hindu holocaust was bloodier than Amerindian genocide and more hindu slaves were exported to the middle east (via the aptly named "hindu kush") than were blacks to usa.
in politics, ==
We had lost all touch with our own style of governance and were governed by nababs, mughals, and their appointed "zamindars" and "zagirdars".
in the realm of religion and art =====
We, the most prolific of all ancient civilizations, had produced horseshit in the field of religion, art or science ever since the muslims had the country in their grip.
we had entered the zone of uncreative habit, a decadent tradition, and ceased to exercise our humanity. =====
SPOT ON. We are still in that zone to a great extent.
As for Rammohon Roy, he was the first <b>post-islamic </b> Indian who saw the socio-cultural-religious mess that india was in the 1800's (not very different from Europe in the "dark ages") for what it was and tried to lift the darkness. Its precisely the parts of india which have not in the least been influenced by european enlightment where we still find astronomical population growth, dowry, witch/dalit burning, child marriage and other mediaval crap.
I had started a thread long back here called "what does india owe to the west" and had concluded there that their sole legacy was to pull us out of Islamic darkness (on social, cultural, scientific, political and other fronts) - all that at the cost of being reduced to utter poverty by colonialisation.
10-23-2006, 06:07 PM (This post was last modified: 10-23-2006, 06:17 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As for Rammohon Roy, he was the first post-islamic Indian who saw the socio-cultural-religious mess that india was in the 1800's (not very different from Europe in the "dark ages") for what it was and tried to lift the darkness. Its precisely the parts of india which have not in the least been influenced by european enlightment where we still find astronomical population growth, dowry, witch/dalit burning, child marriage and other mediaval crap.
I had started a thread long back here called "what does india owe to the west" and had concluded there that their sole legacy was to pull us out of Islamic darkness (on social, cultural, scientific, political and other fronts) - all that at the cost of being reduced to utter poverty by colonialisation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right Right and it's the states with the most "englightenment influence" that will be part of Mughalistan in the coming years while in the backward bride burning states (which again is an indirect contribution of the enlightened British through the Dowry system) Hindus will atleast have some land to squat on.
By the way I can say the same thing about Bengal, that it's nowhere compared to Gujarat which has a much higher population growth and where the Hindus are more traditional, population growth being reduced is seen as progressive in leftist circles but watch what will happen in Kerala, Assam and WB in the coming years. Last I heard many of the border areas have been cleansed of Bengali Hindus, watch your Bangla brothers take over the remaining Bengal and Bengali Hindus will end up like Sindhis or KP's.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Oct 23 2006, 06:07 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Oct 23 2006, 06:07 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As for Rammohon Roy, he was the first post-islamic Indian who saw the socio-cultural-religious mess that india was in the 1800's (not very different from Europe in the "dark ages") for what it was and tried to lift the darkness. Its precisely the parts of india which have not in the least been influenced by european enlightment where we still find astronomical population growth, dowry, witch/dalit burning, child marriage and other mediaval crap.
I had started a thread long back here called "what does india owe to the west" and had concluded there that their sole legacy was to pull us out of Islamic darkness (on social, cultural, scientific, political and other fronts) - all that at the cost of being reduced to utter poverty by colonialisation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right Right and it's the states with the most "englightenment influence" that will be part of Mughalistan in the coming years while in the backward bride burning states (which again is an indirect contribution of the enlightened British through the Dowry system) Hindus will atleast have some land to squat on.
By the way I can say the same thing about Bengal, that it's nowhere compared to Gujarat which has a much higher population growth and where the Hindus are more traditional, population growth being reduced is seen as progressive in leftist circles but watch what will happen in Kerala, Assam and WB in the coming years. Last I heard many of the border areas have been cleansed of Bengali Hindus, watch your Bangla brothers take over the remaining Bengal and Bengali Hindus will end up like Sindhis or KP's.
[right][snapback]59560[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
see you answer your point yourself.
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.
greater population groiwth indicates nothing, certainly not progress. had that been true then south east asia would be more progressive than western europe.
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?
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).
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.
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.
btw, we are the third biggest economy in india (w.b. govt is bankrupt though, but not the state), ahead of all but tamil nadu and maharashtra. go figure.
<!--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.
and why the differential fertility dear?? why could (during muslim rule) a muslim have 5 kids and feed them well too, while a hindu could not support a family of 3 even, esp there was a girl child?? besides differential fertility certainly the only reason. bengal became a majority muslim state (and before that a majority buddhist state) because all the lower castes converted enmass. AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT BENGAL WAS PARTIONED BECAUSE OF POPULATION YOU SHOW HOW IGNORANT OF HISTORY YOU ARE. BENGAL WAS PARTIONED TO WEAKEN BENGAL, TO CURB OUR ULTRANATIONALISM, TO LEAVE CALCUTTA WITHOUT A HINTERLAND AND BANGLADESH WITHOUT A FOUNTAINHEAD. BENGAL'S PARTITION WAS A BRITISH MOVE TO PROLONG THEIR STAY HERE, AS WERE SO MANY OF THEIR MOVES (INDUCTING MUSLIMS IN RAJ ARMY, SETTING UP GANDHI ETC)
All of these self piteous sob stories are not really helpful, even Punjab had to go through many of these things.
punjab had to go through more BLOODSHED than any other state. and most of that bloodshed was during the partition of india (into india and pakistan) itself, not during the 200 year colonial period, unless you count the jalionwallah bagh massacre. no famines took place in the punjab, not artificially engineered once anyway.
Lesser population does not indicate progress either as you will find out when Muslims take over Europe and WB.
all over the world the most prosperous countries have the humblest population growth. the biggest conclusion that can be drawn from low population growth, is that the female education is high (proven many many times over, high female education at least till primary level reduces population growth).
If they all get pushed into Uttaranchal, they would live in crazily cramped conditions but they would still live, not get kicked out.
you missed the point. i meant to say uttaranchal's population density would suddenly grow many fold if all u.p. hindus are shoved into uttaranchal. Almost all BD muslims moved into west bengal, during partition of bengal and then during 1947 and again during 1971. hence the artificially caused high population density of west bengal, and thus the need to arrest the growth.
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.
just what i expected. the dowry theory is one person's thesis. there are similar theories about how 9/11 was a israeli job, how pearl harbour was known to americans etc etc. First its such an islamic thing to the core, this dowry. english society is not known to have dowry, islamic society does. The english may have at most added fuel to the fire (and tried to make dowry more widespread) to screw up our society further. Which begs the question, why west bengal/bengal, the hotbed of the english presence in india doesnt have dowry at all. or why only the parts of india whch suffered under the muslims have dowry. surely madras presidency should have lots of dowry !!
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.
for 150 years, we were the light of india. no state has produced a string of luminaries like we have. bark all you want, but facts remain facts. i wrote no nonsense. north india (bimaru belt/gangetic belt - the part of india where everything thats hindu was manufactured, from yoga to astronomy to stastra to ayurveda et al) had been sodomised by islamic hounds for 1000 years, purely because of the location of islamic countries, esp afghanistan. and bengal bore the brunt of british loot and suffered the biggest engineered famines. both facts. best accept it. also try to write correct english.
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.
our (we indians) fault that we had islamic rule. and the islamic rule's fault that we had british rule.
bengal's present day condition is thanks to Jyoti basu and his commies. we actually recovered quite well from 1947 to 71 and were the state with the first iit, first iim, first metro rail, first city/state bus transport, first satellite city (modelled on salt lake city, utah). everything went for a toss thanks to the refugee problem of 1971. anyway, like i said we are still the third biggest economy.
having said that, i have to accept that punjab did go through a bloodbath during partition (bengal's population switch had already taken place to a great extent mind you during 1917 partition). and yes thanks to their enterprise and business acumen thay have a lot of well earned prosperity and well being.
All this has nothing at all to do with the prime reason why Bengal will be lost, differential fertility, plain and simple.
bengal will not be lost. and we dont want to catch up with muslims at breeding. i'll leave that to others.
10-24-2006, 08:43 PM (This post was last modified: 10-24-2006, 08:46 PM by Bodhi.)
<!--QuoteBegin-ben_ami+Oct 24 2006, 11:06 AM-->QUOTE(ben_ami @ Oct 24 2006, 11:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->english society is not known to have dowry[right][snapback]59609[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not quiet true...
Wikipedia says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A dowry (also known as trousseau) is a gift of money or valuables given by the bride's family to that of the groom at the time of their marriage. It has been regarded as contribution of her family to the married household's expenses.
In societies where payment of dowry is common, unmarried women are seen to attract stigma and tarnish the family reputation, so it is in the bride's family's interest to marry off their daughter as soon as she is eligible. In some areas where this is practised, the size of the necessary dowry is directly proportional to the groom's social status, thus making it virtually impossible for lower class women to marry into upper class families. In some cases where a woman's family is too poor to afford any dowry whatsoever, she is either forbidden from ever marrying, or at most becomes a concubine to a richer man who can afford to support a large household. Dowries have been part of civil law in almost all countries, Europe included. Dowries were important components of Roman marriages.
The opposite direction, property settled on the bride by the groom, is called dower.
Dowry was widely practiced in Europe, being found from classical Greece to Victorian England. It was regarded as contribution of her family to the married household's expenses. In many cultures, it was regarded as an early payment of her inheritance, such that only daughters who had not received their dowry were entitled to part of the estate when their parents died, and if the couple died without children, the dowry had to revert to the bride's family.
In Homeric times, the usual practice was of a brideprice, and when dowries were practiced in classical times, there would also be a (smaller) brideprice being given by the groom to the bride's family. Ancient Romans also practiced dowry, though Tacitus noted that among the Germans, the practice was the reverse: a groom settled a dower on the bride.
With the advent of Christianity and religious orders, women also brought their dowries with them when they became nuns.
Failure to provide a customary, or agreed-upon, dowry could call off a marriage. William Shakespeare made use of this in Measure for Measure: Claudio and Juliet's premarital sex was brought about by their families' wrangling over dowry after the betrothal, and Angelo's motive for forswearing his betrothal with Mariana is the loss of her dowry at sea.
Customs varied widely, but some were widespread. Normally the bride would be entitled to her dowry in event of her widowhood, prior to the evolution of her dower rights; so common was this that the terms "dowry" and "dower" are sometimes confused. In event that the couple were childless, the dowry normally reverted to the bride's family; sometimes the groom could retain possession of it through his lifetime, or until he remarried.
One common penalty for the kidnapping and rape of unmarried women was that the abductor or rapist had to provide the woman's dowry.
Providing dowries for poor women was regarded as a form of charity. The custom of Christmas stockings springs from a legend of St. Nicholas, in which he threw gold in the stockings of three poor sisters, thus providing for their dowries. St. Elizabeth of Portugal and St. Martin de Porres were particularly noted for providing such dowries, and the Archconfraternity of the Annunciation, a Roman charity dedicated to providing dowries, received the entire estate of Pope Urban VII.
In some parts of Europe, land dowries were common. In Grafschaft Bentheim, for instance, it was not uncommon for people who had no sons to give a land dowry to their new son-in-law with the stipulation attached that with the land comes the family name whence it came, thus a condition of the land dowry was that the groom would take on the family name of his bride.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Oct 24 2006, 08:43 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Oct 24 2006, 08:43 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-ben_ami+Oct 24 2006, 11:06 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ben_ami @ Oct 24 2006, 11:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->english society is not known to have dowry[right][snapback]59609[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not quiet true...
Wikipedia says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A dowry (also known as trousseau) is a gift of money or valuables given by the bride's family to that of the groom at the time of their marriage. It has been regarded as contribution of her family to the married household's expenses.
In societies where payment of dowry is common, unmarried women are seen to attract stigma and tarnish the family reputation, so it is in the bride's family's interest to marry off their daughter as soon as she is eligible. In some areas where this is practised, the size of the necessary dowry is directly proportional to the groom's social status, thus making it virtually impossible for lower class women to marry into upper class families. In some cases where a woman's family is too poor to afford any dowry whatsoever, she is either forbidden from ever marrying, or at most becomes a concubine to a richer man who can afford to support a large household. Dowries have been part of civil law in almost all countries, Europe included. Dowries were important components of Roman marriages.
The opposite direction, property settled on the bride by the groom, is called dower.
Dowry was widely practiced in Europe, being found from classical Greece to Victorian England. It was regarded as contribution of her family to the married household's expenses. In many cultures, it was regarded as an early payment of her inheritance, such that only daughters who had not received their dowry were entitled to part of the estate when their parents died, and if the couple died without children, the dowry had to revert to the bride's family.
In Homeric times, the usual practice was of a brideprice, and when dowries were practiced in classical times, there would also be a (smaller) brideprice being given by the groom to the bride's family. Ancient Romans also practiced dowry, though Tacitus noted that among the Germans, the practice was the reverse: a groom settled a dower on the bride.
With the advent of Christianity and religious orders, women also brought their dowries with them when they became nuns.
Failure to provide a customary, or agreed-upon, dowry could call off a marriage. William Shakespeare made use of this in Measure for Measure: Claudio and Juliet's premarital sex was brought about by their families' wrangling over dowry after the betrothal, and Angelo's motive for forswearing his betrothal with Mariana is the loss of her dowry at sea.
Customs varied widely, but some were widespread. Normally the bride would be entitled to her dowry in event of her widowhood, prior to the evolution of her dower rights; so common was this that the terms "dowry" and "dower" are sometimes confused. In event that the couple were childless, the dowry normally reverted to the bride's family; sometimes the groom could retain possession of it through his lifetime, or until he remarried.
One common penalty for the kidnapping and rape of unmarried women was that the abductor or rapist had to provide the woman's dowry.
Providing dowries for poor women was regarded as a form of charity. The custom of Christmas stockings springs from a legend of St. Nicholas, in which he threw gold in the stockings of three poor sisters, thus providing for their dowries. St. Elizabeth of Portugal and St. Martin de Porres were particularly noted for providing such dowries, and the Archconfraternity of the Annunciation, a Roman charity dedicated to providing dowries, received the entire estate of Pope Urban VII.
In some parts of Europe, land dowries were common. In Grafschaft Bentheim, for instance, it was not uncommon for people who had no sons to give a land dowry to their new son-in-law with the stipulation attached that with the land comes the family name whence it came, thus a condition of the land dowry was that the groom would take on the family name of his bride.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Oct 24 2006, 08:50 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Oct 24 2006, 08:50 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Friends, are we not far away from Gandhi Assassination topic by now?
Mod alert....can we move the past few posts to a relevant topic ('How Hindus Survived' started by Digvijay?)
[right][snapback]59611[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i agree and also concede that i have contributed more than my fair share to the deviation.
but you will notice that 3/5 thread have a deviation of some sort.
(thread deviation alert..)
Ben_ami,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->how prevalent was dowry in england in year 1800-1900??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are references to dowry in Shakespeare. Dowry played a huge part in alliances and nation building efforts all across Europe. Mumbai and surrounding islands were in itself a dowry gift to Brits from Portuguese.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A hundred and twenty-eight years later the islands were given to the English King Charles II in dowry on his marriage to Portuguese Princess Catherine of Braganza in 1662<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mumbai history
<!--QuoteBegin-ben_ami+Oct 24 2006, 11:20 AM-->QUOTE(ben_ami @ Oct 24 2006, 11:20 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->your article reffered to homeric times, roman times, shakespeare's time and the time period over which europe was converted to christianity. how prevalent was dowry in england in year 1800-1900??
[right][snapback]59612[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
becfore, during and after Christianization of England and larger Europe.
Victorian times (before and around 1800s) had lots of examples of Dowry. As pointed out by Viren, "Bombay" was a dowry gift itself. Many examples from literature of that time.
Now coming to dowry in India, it is ALL around and not just in Bimaru states. Go south, like in AP, and dowry is in much larger proportions... And by the way Dowry itself is not a social evil, the demand of dowry is.
<!--QuoteBegin-ben_ami+Oct 24 2006, 11:20 AM-->QUOTE(ben_ami @ Oct 24 2006, 11:20 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->PS : you know beef eating is common in india ....cos the vedics used to eat beef !!
[right][snapback]59612[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Totally missed the point... or was it humour?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->and why the differential fertility dear?? why could (during muslim rule) a muslim have 5 kids and feed them well too, while a hindu could not support a family of 3 even, esp there was a girl child?? besides differential fertility certainly the only reason. bengal became a majority muslim state (and before that a majority buddhist state) because all the lower castes converted enmass. AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT BENGAL WAS PARTIONED BECAUSE OF POPULATION YOU SHOW HOW IGNORANT OF HISTORY YOU ARE. BENGAL WAS PARTIONED TO WEAKEN BENGAL, TO CURB OUR ULTRANATIONALISM, TO LEAVE CALCUTTA WITHOUT A HINTERLAND AND BANGLADESH WITHOUT A FOUNTAINHEAD. BENGAL'S PARTITION WAS A BRITISH MOVE TO PROLONG THEIR STAY HERE, AS WERE SO MANY OF THEIR MOVES (INDUCTING MUSLIMS IN RAJ ARMY, SETTING UP GANDHI ETC)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Muslims first became a majority in Bengal in the 1881 census, the tilt came through excessive Muslim breeding not through conversions.
Ya we know all about these conspiracy theories of British setting up Gandhi (utter nonsense), keep living in your fantasies, the basis for partition was that the states of British India that were Muslim majority would go to Pakistan, Hindu and Sikh leaders stepped in salvaged WB and E.Punjab while morons like Sarat Chandra Bose were proposing a United Bengal with a Muslim majority, even if the British wanted to they could not have prevented the partition of Bengal except by explicitly taking the Hindu side, if Muslims formed 70% of East Bengal it was natural that the area would go to them.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->punjab had to go through more BLOODSHED than any other state. and most of that bloodshed was during the partition of india (into india and pakistan) itself, not during the 200 year colonial period, unless you count the jalionwallah bagh massacre. no famines took place in the punjab, not artificially engineered once anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Peasants in Punjab were suffering in the hands of the moneylenders. The Land Alienation Act 1900 had failed in its objective of saving the agriculturist from the clutches of the moneylenders. At the top of it Plague had taken a toll of nearly four million people in Punjab which was followed by famine and earthquake in 1905.
Having a famine had nothing to do with Islamization, infact more Muslims died in the Bengal famine (natural considering that they were a slight majority) during the world war.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->all over the world the most prosperous countries have the humblest population growth. the biggest conclusion that can be drawn from low population growth, is that the female education is high (proven many many times over, high female education at least till primary level reduces population growth).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Progress does not mean being prosperous alone, progress also includes the capability to save your culture from Islamic inroads, many of the European countries lack the will and will be islamisised.
It's no use having money if you get screwed over by others.
And you don't know what you are talking about, higher female education does not necessarily reduce population growth as witnessed by Kerala where Muslims have the same education levels as xtians and Hindus but have double the birth rate of the state.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->you missed the point. i meant to say uttaranchal's population density would suddenly grow many fold if all u.p. hindus are shoved into uttaranchal. Almost all BD muslims moved into west bengal, during partition of bengal and then during 1947 and again during 1971. hence the artificially caused high population density of west bengal, and thus the need to arrest the growth.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no need to arrest anything and you are talking nonsense. BD Muslims never moved to WB in 1947, many moved out as witnessed by fall in Muslim % in WB in the 1951 census. They moved in during 1971 and have been moving in ever since.
Simply export the excess Bengali Hindus to other states while continuing to maintain a high birth rate so that Muslim % will not grow and the very fact that BD Muslims are pouring in indicates that Bengal still has space left which the Muslims are filling in, if the Hindus kept their birth rate constant the Muslims would have no space left to fill and wouldn't enter.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->just what i expected. the dowry theory is one person's thesis. there are similar theories about how 9/11 was a israeli job, how pearl harbour was known to americans etc etc. First its such an islamic thing to the core, this dowry. english society is not known to have dowry, islamic society does. The english may have at most added fuel to the fire (and tried to make dowry more widespread) to screw up our society further. Which begs the question, why west bengal/bengal, the hotbed of the english presence in india doesnt have dowry at all. or why only the parts of india whch suffered under the muslims have dowry. surely madras presidency should have lots of dowry !!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the book before you start spouting nonsense, here are some statistics:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Geographical distribution of dowry deaths, 1994
Source: National Crimes Bureau, Home Ministry
Andhra Pradesh - 396
Arunachal Pradesh - 0
Assam - 13
Bihar - 296
Goa - 0
Gujarat - 105
Haryana - 191
Himachal Pradesh - 4
Jammu & Kashmir - 1
Karnataka - 170
Kerala - 9
Madhya Pradesh - 354
Maharashtra - 519
Manipur - 0
Meghalaya - 0
Mizoram - 0
Nagaland - 2
Orissa - 169
Punjab - 117
Rajasthan - 298
Sikkim - 0
Tamilnadu - 83
Tripura - 6
Uttar Pradesh - 1977
West Bengal - 349
Also Maharashtra was independent of Muslims for 150 years before the British came so why does it have a high rate of dowry deaths?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->our (we indians) fault that we had islamic rule. and the islamic rule's fault that we had british rule.
bengal's present day condition is thanks to Jyoti basu and his commies. we actually recovered quite well from 1947 to 71 and were the state with the first iit, first iim, first metro rail, first city/state bus transport, first satellite city (modelled on salt lake city, utah). everything went for a toss thanks to the refugee problem of 1971. anyway, like i said we are still the third biggest economy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's the fault of Bengalis that Bengal had Muslim rule continuously not others fault and it was our fault that we had British rule, since you don't seem to know your history Hindus were ruling most of India when the British entered the scene, so Muslims were nowhere in the picture except in some states like Bengal and Mysore.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->bengal will not be lost. and we dont want to catch up with muslims at breeding. i'll leave that to others.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think they used to say the same thing about partition "partition will not happen" but they found out the reality too late and you will find it out too.
Bodhi,Oct 24 2006, 09:39 PM Wrote:Now coming to dowry in India, it is ALL around and not just in Bimaru states. Go south, like in AP, and dowry is in much larger proportions... And by the way Dowry itself is not a social evil, the demand of dowry is.
ok i have to concede that i was not aware that dowry was popular in victorian england.
and even if it was common, i want evidence that dowry was the "evil' it is today. i mean i want evidence to show that the wife was killed by the inlaws since her dad failed to pay dowry and that sort of thing (the sort of thing that makes dowry a "social evil" and brings it to the news. i am well aware that every year millions of marriages involve dowry. as long as the bride's family pays up, all goes smoth. the wife beating/killing/divorce etc happens only when with "defaulter" parents).
i am forced to disagree about dowry occuring all over india. south certainly doesn't throw up cases of wife beatings and rapings cos of "dowry default". the "pratha" or tradition of dowry may be there though - where the bride's family is expected to give something. but not the hard and fast that is there say in bihar, nor the "rates". in interior bihar, the parents of a graduate son wont agree to marriage unless the bride's parents cough up about 2 lacs. going rate for IAS officers and engineers are about 5 lacs. dowry deaths occur in the so called "hindi belt" for the large part.
but yes dowry itself isnt so evil per se' (though it is narrow minded in the extreme to expect the family - with whom you are going to be related from now on through marriage - to earn their keep as your relative by paying their way in.). very feudal, mediaval and almost tribal.
bombay as dowry was known to me, but that was done more to make alliances/make peace than any other reason. We have tourist bus diplomacy these days between india and pakistan. this "dowry gift" of the islands of bombay was another kind of political/diplomatic move.
ben_ami,Oct 24 2006, 11:20 AM Wrote:PS : you know beef eating is common in india ....cos the vedics used to eat beef !!
[right][snapback]59612[/snapback][/right]
Totally missed the point... or was it humour?
[right][snapback]59620[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
no humour.
i meant that, just like the fact that beef eating was popular in vedic days dont prove that they were popular in india say in the 1900's, the fact that dowry was popular in homeric, roman or Charlemagne's time dont prove that they were very common in Victorean england.
besides i am still looking for evidence of "the evil side" of dowry (wife beating in case of default etc) in 19th century england.
Also the biggest question that pops up is that if it was no common in victorean england and the english stoked the dowry fire (dowry was common in india at least since muslim days, if not even earlier, .ie. from hindu times), then how come bengal neither had a trend of demanding dowry, let alone the "evil side" of it.
Bodhi,Oct 24 2006, 09:39 PM Wrote:Now coming to dowry in India, it is ALL around and not just in Bimaru states. Go south, like in AP, and dowry is in much larger proportions... And by the way Dowry itself is not a social evil, the demand of dowry is.
ok i have to concede that i was not aware that dowry was popular in victorian england.
and even if it was common, i want evidence that dowry was the "evil' it is today. i mean i want evidence to show that the wife was killed by the inlaws since her dad failed to pay dowry and that sort of thing (the sort of thing that makes dowry a "social evil" and brings it to the news. i am well aware that every year millions of marriages involve dowry. as long as the bride's family pays up, all goes smoth. the wife beating/killing/divorce etc happens only when with "defaulter" parents).
i am forced to disagree about dowry occuring all over india. south certainly doesn't throw up cases of wife beatings and rapings cos of "dowry default". the "pratha" or tradition of dowry may be there though - where the bride's family is expected to give something. but not the hard and fast that is there say in bihar, nor the "rates". in interior bihar, the parents of a graduate son wont agree to marriage unless the bride's parents cough up about 2 lacs. going rate for IAS officers and engineers are about 5 lacs. dowry deaths occur in the so called "hindi belt" for the large part.
but yes dowry itself isnt so evil per se' (though it is narrow minded in the extreme to expect the family - with whom you are going to be related from now on through marriage - to earn their keep as your relative by paying their way in.). very feudal, mediaval and almost tribal.
bombay as dowry was known to me, but that was done more to make alliances/make peace than any other reason. We have tourist bus diplomacy these days between india and pakistan. this "dowry gift" of the islands of bombay was another kind of political/diplomatic move.
ben_ami,Oct 24 2006, 11:20 AM Wrote:PS : you know beef eating is common in india ....cos the vedics used to eat beef !!
[right][snapback]59612[/snapback][/right]
Totally missed the point... or was it humour?
[right][snapback]59620[/snapback][/right]
no humour.
i meant that, just like the fact that beef eating was popular in vedic days dont prove that they were popular in india say in the 1900's, the fact that dowry was popular in homeric, roman or Charlemagne's time dont prove that they were very common in Victorean england.
besides i am still looking for evidence of "the evil side" of dowry (wife beating in case of default etc) in 19th century england.
Also the biggest question that pops up is that if it was no common in victorean england and the english stoked the dowry fire (dowry was common in india at least since muslim days, if not even earlier, .ie. from hindu times), then how come bengal neither had a trend of demanding dowry, let alone the "evil side" of it.
[right][snapback]59679[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Oct 24 2006, 11:46 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Oct 24 2006, 11:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->you missed the point. i meant to say uttaranchal's population density would suddenly grow many fold if all u.p. hindus are shoved into uttaranchal. Almost all BD muslims moved into west bengal, during partition of bengal and then during 1947 and again during 1971. hence the artificially caused high population density of west bengal, and thus the need to arrest the growth.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no need to arrest anything and you are talking nonsense. BD Muslims never moved to WB in 1947, many moved out as witnessed by fall in Muslim % in WB in the 1951 census. They moved in during 1971 and have been moving in ever since.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
before anything else, i got to point this out.
i meant to say "almost all BD <b>hindus</b>" and not muslims.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Oct 24 2006, 11:46 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Oct 24 2006, 11:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> the basis for partition was that the states of British India that were Muslim majority would go to Pakistan,
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
u r talking about the partition in 1947.
when bengal was partitioned, indian independence was not on the horizon and the partition was done by lord Curzon with the express intention of weakenning bengal. when that ploy failed, they reluctantly shifted their capital to delhi.
Quote:The Peasants in Punjab were suffering in the hands of the moneylenders. The Land Alienation Act 1900 had failed in its objective of saving the agriculturist from the clutches of the moneylenders. At the top of it Plague had taken a toll of nearly four million people in Punjab which was followed by famine and earthquake in 1905.
At the turn of the century there was a net population decline in Punjab due to the famine
Having a famine had nothing to do with Islamization, infact more Muslims died in the Bengal famine (natural considering that they were a slight majority) during the world war..
nothng to do with islamisation, but a lot to do with artificially induced poverty and desperation and creation of refugees. and yes muslims also died in the famines, when did i say they didnt??
punjab's "famines"/deaths were not entirely created by the british, just like the farmer suicides of andhra pradesh and vidharba are not british creations. money lenders had a role too. also it was not of the same proportion, and repeatedly neither.
Quote:all over the world the most prosperous countries have the humblest population growth. the biggest conclusion that can be drawn from low population growth, is that the female education is high (proven many many times over, high female education at least till primary level reduces population growth).
Progress does not mean being prosperous alone, progress also includes the capability to save your culture from Islamic inroads, many of the European countries lack the will and will be islamisised.
It's no use having money if you get screwed over by others.
And you don't know what you are talking about, higher female education does not necessarily reduce population growth as witnessed by Kerala where Muslims have the same education levels as xtians and Hindus but have double the birth rate of the state.
all over the world the biggest factor that arrested population growth is female education. that females in kerela breed twice as much as educated hindu females do, shows a lot about islam's ulterior designs and policies yes, but does not disprove what i said (female literracy corelates very highly to decreasing population).
european countries will be islamised because of their "pleasure based societies' and cos they are insourcing workers instead of outsourcing jobs (a better option).
Quote:you missed the point. i meant to say uttaranchal's population density would suddenly grow many fold if all u.p. hindus are shoved into uttaranchal. Almost all BD muslims moved into west bengal, during partition of bengal and then during 1947 and again during 1971. hence the artificially caused high population density of west bengal, and thus the need to arrest the growth.
There is no need to arrest anything and you are talking nonsense. BD Muslims never moved to WB in 1947, many moved out as witnessed by fall in Muslim % in WB in the 1951 census. They moved in during 1971 and have been moving in ever since.
i clarified my typo in that part of my post, and so you answer is rendered meaningless/un-necessary.
Simply export the excess Bengali Hindus to other states while continuing to maintain a high birth rate so that Muslim % will not grow and the very fact that BD Muslims are pouring in indicates that Bengal still has space left which the Muslims are filling in, if the Hindus kept their birth rate constant the Muslims would have no space left to fill and wouldn't enter.
the "exporting" occurs thanks to the commie holocaust that has run the manufacturing sector to the ground and has caused jobs to vanish from west bengal in general. with BB the trend has been arrested and in future loks likely to be reversed. (on a larger scale the same happened in india when all qualified indians headed for silicon valley and now the trend is arrested and in future more and more nri's will return).
the fact that BD muslims are pouring in shows that the bsf dont patrol eastern boundaries as much as they do on the north west (and its a lot easy to patrol the plains of bengal than the hills of kashmir).
as for space left - well then every country has space left including a holland and a japan, given that the entire population of the earth can be squeezed into the Island of Man.
Read the book before you start spouting nonsense, here are some statistics:
so why does the media have us believe that it takes place in the northern states alone?? infact often the media reports are straight from governt research papers and there too they never highlight a bangal or a maharashtra or a tamil nadu, but always a bihar or a haryana.
it certainly doesnt. only that i have almost never read in any news paper or seen in any news channel about any deaths outside the "bimaru belt". maharashtra, andhra and bengal are all surprises to me.
Also Maharashtra was independent of Muslims for 150 years before the British came so why does it have a high rate of dowry deaths?
first can we establish that it does have a lot of dowry deaths?? somehow your one reference is not convincing enough. farmer suicides yes, but dowry??
It's the fault of Bengalis that Bengal had Muslim rule continuously
agreed. same applies to all parts of india.
not others fault and it was our fault that we had British rule,
no. the british found us as a nation in comatose, thanks to the muslim hammering.
since you don't seem to know your history Hindus were ruling most of India when the British entered the scene, so Muslims were nowhere in the picture except in some states like Bengal and Mysore.
really?? nabab of oudh, nabab of bengal, bahadur shah zafar, tipu sultan, ahmedabad kings and nabab of pataudi and nizam all hindus??
Quote:bengal will not be lost. and we dont want to catch up with muslims at breeding. i'll leave that to others.
I think they used to say the same thing about partition "partition will not happen" but they found out the reality too late and you will find it out too.
[right][snapback]59626[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
during partition we had no say. we have the 4th biggest standing army now. BIG difference in india's ability to control her destiny and boundaries between then and now. what you can say is that a civil war is inevitable and yes if such a thing occurs then bengal together with assam, kerela and the gangetic plain states of up and bihar are likely to be the scene of action.
