Indian Movies Thread IV

11-27-2007, 09:09 PM

Here we go again - please note that these are Catholics and secular. Beat that!
Catholic Secular Forum has condemned Shekhar Kapur's magnum opus movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age, for its anti-Catholic stance

QUOTE1) It is yet another film, in the line (Da Vinci Code, Golden Compass, Magdalene Sisters, Last Temptation... ) of those that mock the papacy, Catholic Church & its clergy. It is an insidious direct attack on Catholicism by demonizing all those who profess the faith. It is also divisive in nature, reawakening the Catholic-Protestant divide. Catholic holy articles like the Rosary beads or the Crucifix are used disrespectfully and as Church-bashing imagery to show the fall of the Roman Catholic empire, with the clergy retreating quietly, after the defeat of Spain by England.

2) The movie begins by describing Philip II, as the 'Catholic King of Spain' and depicts him as a ferocious, fanatical Catholic swinging his rosary like a weapon. The commentary mentions, he "plunged Europe into holy war," and "only England stands against him." The Pope and other Catholic leaders regard Mary of Scots, as the true Queen of England, so King Philip was given the just cause of avenging the queen's death and overthrowing Elizabeth's court.

3) Elizabeth II paints everything bad, evil and corrupt as ultimately the bitter fruit of the Catholicism, while Protestantism deals with values related to the conscience, contemplative prayer, religious freedom & heroic resistance to Catholic oppression. "I will not punish my people for their beliefs - only for their deeds", Elizabeth says, or again, when people advised her to 'Kill off all the Catholics,' she is known to have said, 'No, we need to be tolerant.', who is Protestantism personified. It conveniently skirts the plight of Catholics during her reign or under Kings Henry VIII and Edward, before and after her.

4) Catholics are those who chant out loud, usually in spooky Latin, read from prayer books, clutch rosary beads, wear crucifixes and surround themselves with clerics bestowing church sanction on sinister goings-on. Worst of all, it's Catholics who have religious ideas and motivations. The Protestants shown as are the morally upright & the human rights abuses of the Elizabethan era are unseen. The faults of Queen Elizabeth are glossed over, such as pushing through the Act of Uniformity through Parliament, outlawing the Catholic Mass and imposing compulsory attendance at Anglican services. In this version of history, the hosts of Catholics martyred under her are all traitors and conspirators.

5) The Opus Dei of Da Vinci Code fame, (not being available in the sixteenth century) is replaced by the King of Spain, the Church & all Catholics in England of the time. The albino monk assassin of Da Vinci Code now seems to be replaced by a priest-assassin, supplied by the Jesuits congregation.

6) It is apparent that the profit-motive ensured many historical inaccuracies and by making the Pope, Church & Catholics - soft-targets, Shekhar Kapur has ensured the Elizabeth sequel grossed $6.1 million in 2,001 theatres during its opening weekend in the United States and Canada, ranking # 6 at the box office.

11-27-2007, 11:11 PM

M F Husain books entire theatre for Madhuri
QUOTEThe famous painter, now living in Dubai, has reserved 194 seats for the 2pm show at Lamcy Cinema on the day for special guests from all walks of life.

Couple months ago when mumbai police was investigating M F Husain's assets, they didn't find any. Now we find that our man is booking entire theatre in Dubai for private screening!! Of course our blind media will harp upon Husain not being able to return to India because of Hinduvadis completely oblivious to the legal case and Husain's motivation to move and keep his assets abroad.

It'll be interesting to see who's on M F Hussain's list of 194 guests.

11-29-2007, 02:02 PM

Jesus Christ gets an evil twin in fantasy film

PANAJI, India (Reuters) - There's no mention of him in the Bible but the plot of a fantasy film set in India gives Jesus Christ a twin brother -- and an evil one at that.

German filmmaker Robert Sigl's "The 13th Disciple" is still in the planning stage but producer Mario Stefan is in Goa trying to attract an Indian co-producer for the project.

"It's a fantasy-adventure film and takes place completely in present-day India," Stefan said on the sidelines of the 38th International Film Festival of India, which opened over the weekend.

The story traces the journey of two German archaeologists looking for evidence that Jesus visited India.

The researchers, who are twins themselves, find that Jesus had an evil twin brother who is reincarnated in the present as the scheming head of a religious sect.

Sigl's script had been lying around for several years after the original producer died in an accident, Stefan said.

Filming for the project, expected to cost about 5 million euros ($7.4 million), will take place mainly in Hindu holy city of Varanasi and Kerala in the second half of next year.

The cast of the film will be mostly Indian.

Stefan said he didn't expect any controversy over "The 13th Disciple" which will have Jesus Christ only in the background and not as a character.

"It will be made clear from the beginning of our film that it's fiction," he said. "Even the 'Da Vinci Code' was fiction but there was a lot based on real ideas."

The 'Da Vinci Code', based on Dan Brown's bestselling novel, angered the Catholic community as it is based on the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had children.

The film was banned in several Indian states before being released with the disclaimer that it was a work of fiction.

Christians account for around 2.5 percent of officially secular but mainly Hindu India's 1.1-billion population.

"If you deal with religious themes, you have to be prepared and also (careful) that you do not hurt any feelings," said Stefan. "Our film is not based on true events nor is it giving any religious message."

http://in.reuters.com/article/entertainmen...0071126?sp=true

12-01-2007, 06:29 PM

I was humiliated by IT notices on Abhi's wedding'

12-02-2007, 12:49 AM

QUOTEI was humiliated by IT notices on Abhi's wedding'
See IT department will not ask Rahul Gandhi, how much he is spending on his mistress? They have to collect tax from somewhere. duh !!!

Bharatvarsh · 12-04-2007, 09:27 PM

http://itamilnet.blogspot.com/2007/10/nayagan.html

This one was a classic, similar to The Godfather, loosely based on Varadarajan Mudaliar who was one of the earliest Mafia dons in Mumbai.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 12-06-2007, 05:45 AM by Husky.)

QUOTE(Viren @ Nov 27 2007, 09:09 PM)Here we go again - please note that these are Catholics and secular. Beat that!
Catholic Secular Forum has condemned Shekhar Kapur's magnum opus movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age, for its anti-Catholic stance
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE"It is an insidious direct attack on Catholicism by demonizing all those who profess the faith. It is also divisive in nature, reawakening the Catholic-Protestant divide. Catholic holy articles like the Rosary beads or the Crucifix are used disrespectfully and as Church-bashing imagery to show the fall of the Roman Catholic empire, with the clergy retreating quietly, after the defeat of Spain by England.

2) The movie begins by describing Philip II, as the 'Catholic King of Spain' and depicts him as a ferocious, fanatical Catholic swinging his rosary like a weapon. The commentary mentions, he "plunged Europe into holy war," and "only England stands against him." The Pope and other Catholic leaders regard Mary of Scots, as the true Queen of England, so King Philip was given the just cause of avenging the queen's death and overthrowing Elizabeth's court.

3) Elizabeth II paints everything bad, evil and corrupt as ultimately the bitter fruit of the Catholicism, while Protestantism deals with values related to the conscience, contemplative prayer, religious freedom & heroic resistance to Catholic oppression. "I will not punish my people for their beliefs - only for their deeds", Elizabeth says, or again, when people advised her to 'Kill off all the Catholics,' she is known to have said, 'No, we need to be tolerant.', who is Protestantism personified. It conveniently skirts the plight of Catholics during her reign or under Kings Henry VIII and Edward, before and after her.

4) Catholics are those who chant out loud, usually in spooky Latin, read from prayer books, clutch rosary beads, wear crucifixes and surround themselves with clerics bestowing church sanction on sinister goings-on. Worst of all, it's Catholics who have religious ideas and motivations. The Protestants shown as are the morally upright & the human rights abuses of the Elizabethan era are unseen. The faults of Queen Elizabeth are glossed over, such as pushing through the Act of Uniformity through Parliament, outlawing the Catholic Mass and imposing compulsory attendance at Anglican services. In this version of history, the hosts of Catholics martyred under her are all traitors and conspirators."
[right][snapback]75643[/snapback][/right]</div>Indian christians are a huge embarassment to themselves. They know nothing about European (English, Spanish, Catholic, Protestant) history apparently - unless they're taught versions favourable to themselves, including catholic apologetics (or the protestant kind, as the case may be). See example of ridiculous catholic apologetics taught to ignorant Indian christos in Indian schools - stories about the UK, getting worked up over a place and history that is totally unrelated to Indians anyway:
QUOTEThe Pope and other Catholic leaders regard Mary of Scots, as the true Queen of England, so King Philip was given the just cause of avenging the queen's death and overthrowing Elizabeth's court.Oh puhleese. "The true queen of England"? And who is to decide - the Vatican which isn't even located in England????? The English declare that Elizabeth is the queen. But Indian christo brainwashed by catholic education knows better!
Oh and get this: "King Philip was given the just cause of avenging the queen's death" - yes, of course foreign tyrant was following a "just cause" in England. Guess the loser Indian catholic weeps huge tears for the fate of England when hearing of how Guy Fawkes failed as well.

Really, I'd almost be embarassed for these Indian christians of the catholic cult - but as they're not reflective of my community (Hindus), I think they're just funny. Someone has to post that Catholic Secular Forum comment to some British or even Anglican forum or something to show the British what kind of confused history the Indian catholic church is teaching its sheep. They'll probably roll over laughing or be shocked about such travesty of their history.

No time to go into details, but:
All of Protestant England was dead-set against being crushed by what was popularly called the "Spanish Heel" that was to inevitably ensue upon "Catholic tyrant" Mary's marriage to Phillip of Spain. Even the marriage was considered the greatest threat and treason (and rightfully so: it was the holy church's attempt to get England back with a HUGE vengeance). Mary - "Bloody Mary" - was highly inimical to the Protestant population and had large numbers massacred for their 'treason' against "ze one true faith".

Ever since Protestantism (Anglican church) started in the UK, the chant was always an "end to Popery" and the "evil Papists". They wanted nothing more but to be free of the Vatican, and catholics were known to be loyal only to their faith which meant complete allegiance to the Pope in Rome for fear of hell otherwise. It was incumbent on the catholic population to resist the protestant rule of their country, to try to regain power (which means reinstall Vatican's power in England) and to thereafter end the existence of any protestantism there.

The Protestants referred to the crucifixes worn by Catholics as "idolatry", which going by all descriptions of 'regularly kissing the crucifix' et al, certainly was. When Edward (or whatever - I mean to refer to Henry VIII's son) became king, Catholics were banned from public display of their "papist idolatry". The Protestants did indeed make fun of catholic superstitions. (But the Anglican English, during Napoleonic times at least, did wear crosses about their necks....)
Latin mass was banned, even the Credo had to be in English (the exact opposite of the Vatican's previous imposition), so the catholics conducted these in private.

As bad as all that suppression of catholicism was, the papists were indeed traitors ready to sell their nation of England to Spain (to any catholic nation, but Spain was Numero Uno at the time). It was their first and foremost religious duty. Guy Fawkes' gunpowder treason plot was just one in a long line of catholic attempts at treacherous terrorism to end Protestantism in the UK.

The defeat of Spain by England is indeed regarded as a fundamental turning point in Protestant/English history. Spain was THE POWER at the time - they were the Vatican's most formidable force in Europe. The Spanish were ousted from the Netherlands by a war that is still recalled as one of the most important ones the Dutch won. The Dutch Catholics still rejoice that they won over the "Spanish Catholic tyrants" and the Spanish oppression. (The Belgian Catholics don't rejoice of course, because they sided with Spain and that's why the Dutch Catholics became separated from their brethren on the other side of the border. Even today in Germany and NL, with the encouragement of the holy church, the religiously-Catholic population is reproducing much faster than the Protestant side - though seculars don't see the worry in it. But the point is that majority-Protestant countries like DE and NL would become majority-Catholic eventually or at least break even - unless islam changes the demographics first.)

In any event, Shekar Kapur didn't invent any of the Protestant-Catholic dynamics in that movie he was paid to direct. In fact, I doubt he even wrote the screenplay. In the west, directors are usually hired to just direct a movie. Sometimes they get fired mid-way if they have creative disputes/differences with the writers or producers.
Directors in the west don't even always work with the actors - there are often Dramatic Directors or the equivalent to do that. In America, plot-outlines/screenplays are written first, then they're proposed to studios; if/when the project is greenlighted, the studios decide who they will hire as director based on the budget they allocate for the movie - and this director mostly doesn't even get say in the Final Cut. (Only a handful of directors have Final Cut/Edit rights, which now includes Peter Jackson after LOTR. I doubt Shekar Kapur is one of them.) Not many an American director has written the story AND produced it AND directed it and everything. Again, I doubt Shekar Kapur played such a role in the making of Elizabeth.

So blaming Shekar Kapur for directing a movie where (1) (most likely) someone else's story and screenplay is used and (2) which appears - from the above whine by the Catholic Secular Forum of India - to be quite faithful to the situation in England at the time is just getting too ridiculous.

Elizabeth wasn't a great friend to the catholics, because she had learnt to be wary of them. But she was better than the anti-catholic Edward and the fanatic catholic tyrant Mary who went and hunted down the protestants in England.

And as for uniquely blaming the "Elizabeth" movie for being "anti-catholic" - what a joke. There's barely a single historical novel by an historical Englishman (Anglican) that doesn't have something to say about the Papists. Not just books either:
- BBC documentaries - like the one on Mary alleged mother of alleged jesus (some uncomfortable views about the 'holy virgin' as per christian theologians aired in there)
- historical dramas. See for instance UK's 6 hour miniseries Ivanhoe. The christians there are all catholic as it's set in the 11th century, and the really faithful/religious/practising christians among them are all (1) traitors to England; (2) torturers, madmen, anti-semitic and the witch-burning kind.
I wonder why the loser Indian christo clique of the catholic-cult variety hasn't protested to such programs? These are historically accurate when it comes to their portrayal of christoterrorism, so perhaps that's why the Indian christos have remained silent. Or perhaps Indian christos just have never read historical books or novels written in protestant parts of Europe, nor watched documentaries or programs made in such countries.
Or maybe Indian christos just like the sound of their own whining voices.
They should be forced to watch all this stuff. That will quickly cure many of them of catholicism.

Indian catholics should get themselves an education for a change and not accept the brainwashing and faux-history they learn at their religious institutions. Oh wait, forget that - they appear to be beyond hope: so many of them think Latin is a "christian" language! <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /> And I remember some Indian christian mentioned here at IF advocating that Indian christians name their kids 'Martin' (or a translation thereof into an Indian language)! <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /> <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /> Martin! Which they themselves admitted meant "gift from Mars" (=Roman God). Hysterical!
*That's* all they know. All the more reason never to study in a catholic school in India (in case the nuns hadn't already scared the bejeebus into ya).

12-08-2007, 04:20 AM

Hey Guys, I wanted to know what IF-ers thought about this new upcoming pic starring Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai.

It's called Jodha Akbar and the story revolves around a political alliance between Akbar and one of the Rajputs kings being cemented by Akbar's marriage to this Rajput princess.

Ashutosh Gowariker is trying to potray how a politically motivated alliance blossoms into true love. Now that you've heard the Bollywood spin in a nutshell, what's the real history behind this?

Jodha Akbar

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 12-08-2007, 08:33 AM by Bharatvarsh.)

The Bollywood bastards don't have time to make movies on people like Ranjit Singh, Shivaji or Rana Pratap or Raja Raja Chola or Lachit Barphukhan or countless other freedom fighters but have the time to glorify savages like Akbar.

And shameless Hindus are their biggest customers.

This was the same motherfuck*r that massacred 30,000 Hindu civilians in the invasion of Chittor and gets praised as the father of "secularism" and "tolerance".

Bharatvarsh · 12-08-2007, 06:36 PM

As for Jodhabhai, none of the Rajputs who gave their daughters did it because they liked it, the only one's who didn't (the house of Mewar) looked down upon those who did, Maharana Pratap Singh specifically forbid his followers to ever intermarry with those who gave their daughters to Muslims.

For example Ajit Singh had to give his daughter to the emperor after he was defeated, he forbade cow slaughter and namaz which meant Mughals marched upon him, later on when Mughal power was waning he took back his daughter and made her reconvert to Hinduism.

"They now held a prolonged conference (1708 to 1710 A.D.)(89) on the border of Pushkar lake and after full deliberation proclaimed a solemn concerted policy that they would not henceforth give their daughters in marriage to the Muslimd and that if any prince acted contrary to this resolution, the others should join and put down the deserter by force, if necessary. The Ranas of Udaypur were further acknowledged to be fo purer blood having all-long refused to give their daughters in marriage to the Msulims. Hence, Pushkar conference laid down that if any Rajput prince had an issue from a daughter of Udaypur family that issue was to be given a preference over those born from other wives.

No Hindu ever liked to give his daughter in marriage to a Muslim. It was all the force of circumstances to which the Rajputs had bowed. The acknowledgement of the high social status and the purity of blood of the Rana's family revealed the wounds of the hearts of the Rajput Chiefs. It wad clearly the Hindu spirit that the Rajputs exhibited this time. The Emperor in Deccan did not fail to recognise it.

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index....topic=1249 "

12-08-2007, 07:28 PM

Thanks Bharatbhai

'Who says Akbar was great?' by divangat Sri P N Oak dedicates one full section of the book upon this topic of Mugals (starting with Akbar) marrying Hindu princesses. He tears apart, very crudely and roughly, the claim that it was volunteer Hindu proposals for sending their daughters to the harem of the turki-mangol bred musalmans. The whole thing was like a death in shame for Hindu kings, and it was by force, blackmail and under very dark circumstances that such event took place.

There is one traditional song that is still sung in Alha-Udal type of style, and IIRC Nirad C Chaudhary quotes it somewhere. In the song a Hindu princess returning after her wedding with Mugal, taunts her brother that, 'O Brother, what is that I see below your nose? Is that a moustache?'

Mughal-e-azam was at least made by a musalman. Akbar-Jodha is made by a so-called-Hindu. What a shame for him and his ancestors.

12-08-2007, 08:41 PM

I completely agree with you Bodhiji and Bharatvarshji.

When they say that Akbar was the secular tolerant type (even after knowing his deeds at Chittor) it really speaks volumes about other 'illustrious' mughals of his line.

I'm glad the Maharana isnt alive today to see this. How sad he would have been for us.

Lest our people start accepting this as a fact, I think we need to run a strong counterpoint on this illusion of a secular Moghul. Writing some comments about his accomplishments would definitely help.

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 12-08-2007, 11:40 PM by Bharatvarsh.)

QUOTEMughal-e-azam was at least made by a musalman. Akbar-Jodha is made by a so-called-Hindu. What a shame for him and his ancestors. 
They hail that one as a "classic", besides that there is Umrao Jaan.

They glorify these scum and call them classics.
QUOTELest our people start accepting this as a fact, I think we need to run a strong counterpoint on this illusion of a secular Moghul. Writing some comments about his accomplishments would definitely help.
Definitely.

When the movie comes out, Hindus should write reviews of it on their blogs, I know the people behind Hindu Voice UK and I will ask them to do an article or review of the movie mentioning the truth.

We have no info on the actual marital life of Jodhabhai and Akbar, the "love" thing is just Bollywood spin, he had thousands of women in his harem as did all the Mughal degenerates.

Bollywood can be called the worst example of Indian film industry, glorifying invaders seems a pastime, at least others like the Tamil industry has some movies like Thevar Magan or Virumandi portraying our culture, I can't see any saving grace in Bollywood.

12-11-2007, 02:11 AM

QUOTEWe have no info on the actual marital life of Jodhabhai and Akbar, the "love" thing is just Bollywood spin, he had thousands of women in his harem 
Before our local resident enlightened dhimmi comes around and paints this observation as a part of some non-meat-eating-communal-high-speed-internet-NRI consiparcy, let me post that even M J Akbar in his book makes same comments.
In fact, he even hints at the emperor having his way around with his courtiers wives as the impotents looked the other way. Things changed after he got a male heir via Jodha-bai and then there's his famous walk from Agra to Ajmer.

12-11-2007, 05:25 AM

QUOTEWhen the movie comes out, Hindus should write reviews of it on their blogs, I know the people behind Hindu Voice UK and I will ask them to do an article or review of the movie mentioning the truth

Great idea. We should also put a few words in youtube as well...I've already started. Maybe a bit slow but definitely will get alot of airtime.

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 12-25-2007, 02:08 AM by Bharatvarsh.)

QUOTETHE MYTH OF AKBAR

It is curious but true that the very historians who refuse to see the pre-Akbar period of Muslim rule as a nightmare for Hindus, hail Akbar as the harbinger of a dazzling dawn for the same Hindus. They point out as to how Akbar abolished the pilgrim tax and the jizyah, how he appointed Hindus to high positions, and how he extended to them this or that concession which they had not enjoyed earlier. One may very well ask these worthies that if these discriminatory taxes and disabilities did not exist earlier, how come you find Akbar freeing the Hindus from them? All that one is bound to get by way of an answer will be another bundle of casuistry.

There is no dearth of Hindu historians who heap Akbar with the choicest encomiums. Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava is a typical example. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru goes much further and proclaims Akbar as the father of Indian nationalism. A Hindu who takes all these high-sounding stories with a pinch of salt, is rather rare nowadays.

On the other hand, most Muslim historians and theologians frown upon Akbar as a villain in the history of Islam in India. Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi who believes that Hindus were far more happy under Muslim rule than under that of their own princes, accuses Akbar of jeopardising Pax Moslemaica by tempering with the established tenets of Muslim polity. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad has written that if Ahmad Sirhindi had not come to the rescue, Akbar had almost finished Islam in India. It is only in post-Independence India that some Muslim historians have come forward to present Akbar as the pioneer of Secularism in this country. But we know what Secularism means in Muslim mouths, particularly if the Muslim happens to be a Marxist as well. For them, Akbar is no more than a Muslim hero for Hindu consumption.

One has, therefore, to go to the original sources in order to find the truth about Akbar. The story which these sources tell can be summed up as follows:

1. There was nothing Indian about Akbar except that he lived his life in India, fought his wars in India, built his empire in India, and dragged many Indian women into his harem. He knew nothing about Indiaï¿½s spiritual traditions, or Indiaï¿½s history, or Indiaï¿½s culture except for what he heard from some native sycophants who visited his court for very mundane reasons. No Hindu saint or scholar worth his salt cared to meet or educate him about things Indian. It was only some Jain munis who came close to him. But then Jain munis have always been in search of royal patronage like the Christian missionaries. Moreover, Akbar used these munis for influencing some Rajput princes who would have otherwise remained recalcitrant.

2. Akbar was every inch an Islamic bandit from abroad who conquered a large part of India mainly on the strength of Muslim swordsmen imported from Central Asia and Persia. He took great pride in proclaiming that he was a descendant of Taimur and Babur, and longed to recover the homelands of his forefathers in Transoxiana. He continued to decorate his name with the Islamic honorific ghÃ£zÃ® which he had acquired at the commencement of his reign by beheading the half-dead Himu. The wars he waged against the only resistant Hindu kingdoms - Mewar and Gondwana - had all the characteristics of classic jihÃ£d. Whenever he wanted to celebrate some happy event or seek blessing for some great undertaking - which was quite often - he went on a pilgrimage to the dargah of Muinuddin Chishti, the foremost symbol of Islamï¿½s ceaseless war on Hindus and Hinduism. He sent rich gifts to many centres of Muslim pilgrimage including Mecca and Medina, and carried on negotiations with the Portuguese so that voyages by Muslim pilgrims could be facilitated. In his letters to the Sharifs of Mecca and the Uzbek king of Bukhara, he protested that he was not only a good Muslim but also a champion of Islam, and that the orthodox Ulama who harboured doubts about him did not understand his game of consolidating a strong and durable Islamic empire in India.

3. The concessions which Akbar made to Hindus were not motivated by any benevolence towards Hindus or Hinduism on his part. He was out to win Hindu support in his fight with two inveterate foes of every Muslim empire-builder - the Muslim chieftains and the die-hard Ulama. Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq had faced the same foes earlier, but failed to overcome them because they could not break out of the closed circle of the foreign Muslim fraternity in India. Akbar succeeded in fixing both the foes because he tried a new method, and discovered very soon that it worked. He fixed the Muslim chieftains with the help of Rajput princes and their retinues. He fixed the Ulama partly by making them fall foul of each other in the Ibadat Khana, and partly by flirting with jogis and Jains munis and Christian missionaries in order to frighten them. They had nothing except royal patronage to fatten upon. There is no evidence that Akbarï¿½s association with some spokesmen of rival religions was inspired by any sincere seeking on his part, or that the association improved his mind in any way. He remained a prisoner of Islamic thought-categories to the end of his days.

4. Nor did he have to pay a heavy price for Hindu support. Fortunately for him, he started functioning at a time when Hindu resistance to Islamic imperialism stood at a low ebb except in small pockets like Mewar and Gondwana. Hindu resistance had been led so far by the Rajput princes. But numerous wars fought by them with Muslim marauders for several centuries had exhausted their manpower as well as material resources. Akbar discovered it very soon that he could buy Rajput help in exchange for a few gestures which might have sounded ominous to orthodox Islam at that time but which proved only superficial in the long run. In fact, when one comes to think of it all, Hindus had to pay a very heavy price for those gestures from Akbar. He demanded Hindu princesses for his harem, which meant surrender of Hindu honour. He employed Hindu warriors not only against Muslim rebels but also against Hindu freedom fighters, which meant prostitution of Hindu heroism. For all practical purposes, he made the Hindus wield the sword of Islam not only in his own lifetime but right upto our own times. The pecuniary loss suffered by the Islamic state due to abolition of the pilgrim tax and the jizyah was compensated more than many times by the consolidation of an Islamic empire with a streamlined revenue system such as extracted from the Hindu masses, particularly the peasantry, the heavy cost of extending that empire by means of numerous wars, maintaining Mughal pomp and pageantry, and building monuments like the Taj.Â By the end of the Mughal empire, Hindu masses stood reduced to the subsistence level.

5. It was during the reign of Akbar that Muslim adventurers from many Islamic countries abroad started flocking towards India on an unprecedented scale, and made the Islamic establishment in the country stronger than ever before. They occupied all the top positions in the army as well as the administration of the Mughal empire. Statistics may be marshalled in order to show that Hindu share in government posts went on increasing till the time of Aurangzeb. But there is no gainsaying the fact that Hindu say in the policies of the Mughal empire went on decreasing from the days of Akbarï¿½s immediate successor onwards. Even during the reign of Akbar, Muslim functionaries at the lower levels did not stop molesting Hindus in various ways normal to Islam. Many instances can be cited. Many a magnate in Akbarï¿½s court were in close contact with the orthodox Ulama and Sufis led by Shykh Ahmad Sirhindi who went about saying publicly that Hindu should either be made to embrace Islam or treated like dogs. They came out into the open as soon as Akbar was dead, and their progeny continued to progress towards renewed power and prestige from the reign of Jahangir onwards till they again rose to the top under Aurangzeb.

It is true that the main fault lay with the Hindus for not being able to see through Akbarï¿½s camouflage, and for helping him in consolidating an imperial power which Islam had never known in India in the pre-Akbar period of Muslim rule. But the fact remains that but for Akbar laying the firm foundations, there would have been no sadist scoundrel like Jahangir, no abominable criminal like Shah Jahan, and no Islamic monster like Aurangzeb for heaping endless torments and humiliations on Hindus. Let there be no doubt that far from being a dazzling dawn, the reign of Akbar was only the beginning of a darker night which continues till today in the form of Nehruvian Secularism.
http://www.voiceofdharma.org/books/siii/ch10.htm
QUOTEWhen Akbar had Rajput armies fight his Rajput enemies, he rejoiced at the sight of "Hindus wielding the sword of Islam".ï¿½ When his archers could not distinguish between the Rajput mercenaries and the Rajput freedom-fighters, he told them that it didn't matter, since anyone killed would be a Kafir anyway.ï¿½ India's greatest Moghul is often mindlessly lauded by Hindus as a "secular" ruler, but while he should be credited with a certain wisdom, he was and remained an enemy of the Infidels.ï¿½ Unlike the Delhi sultans, who constantly provoked Hindu uprisings with their cruel politics of jihad (apart from weakening themselves with their internecine fighting), Akbar managed to consolidate a Muslim empire by incorporating a sufficient number of Hindus in his apparatus.ï¿½

Thus, his abolition of the jizya (which could seldom be collected in rural areas where most Hindus lived) need not be read as a gesture of communal amity, but rather as a clever way of opening new tax channels to the rural masses through mostly Hindu tax collectors.ï¿½ He extracted a much larger revenue from Hindu tax-payers in the form of land tax or other secular formulas, than his predecessors had managed to do through the jizya.ï¿½ And it is through Akbar's tax collecting system that Aurangzeb would later collect his re-instituted jizya.

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/bjp/section18.html

Husky · (This post was last modified: 01-01-2008, 10:50 AM by Husky.)

QUOTE(rhytha @ Nov 29 2007, 02:02 PM)Jesus Christ gets an evil twin in fantasy film

PANAJI, India (Reuters) - There's no mention of him in the Bible but the plot of a fantasy film set in India gives Jesus Christ a twin brother -- and an evil one at that.

...
"If you deal with religious themes, you have to be prepared and also (careful) that you do not hurt any feelings," said Stefan. "Our film is not based on true events nor is it giving any religious message."
http://in.reuters.com/article/entertainmen...0071126?sp=true
[right][snapback]75703[/snapback][/right]Only the premise of a twin is based on christian tradition. The other aspects of their plot is indeed modern make-believe.

According to Syrian christians' Act of Thomas, the alleged jesus did in fact have a twin - the dubious Doubting Thomas. He's known as Santa "thomas didymus" which means exactly that: twit.... twin, Twin - I said Twin.

But as for which of the two was evil - well that's up to the beholder as the saying goes. The fictional Thomas was credited with the achievements of early syrian christians' temple breaking in India (1), while jeebus - the poster-boy for equality and all such slogans - apparently sold his own twin brother thomas into slavery as per Syrian christian tradition/Acts of Thomas (2).

(1) http://hamsa.org/15.htm
QUOTEThis is an open admission by the Portuguese that a church had been built on a temple site at Mylaporeâonly they have backdated the event to the first century and attributed the crime to St. Thomas. How extraordinaryâor is it? The Portuguese, and Syrian Christians before them, had given the "honour" of temple--breaking to St. Thomas at Palayur, north of Cranganore, where an early seventeenth century Portuguese church built by the Jesuit Fr. James Fenicio rises amidst temple ruins today (see note 31). Fr. A. Mathias Mundadan, in History of Christianity in India, Vol. I, writes, "The remains of old temples found at Palayur and near the other traditional churches[50] are proof of this." Proof of what? Proof, it would seem, that St. Thomas destroyed temples at all the places where he is said to have built churches.http://hamsa.org/10.htm
QUOTE[31] The archaeological evidence indicates that these churches were built after the ninth century by Nestorian immigrants from Persia. The famous church at Palayur north of Cranganore was built by the Portuguese and is dedicated to the fourth century martyr St. Cyriac (Mar Kuriakkos Sahada). Fr. Herman D'Souza, in In the Steps of St. Thomas, writes, "The [Palayur] temple deserted by the Brahmins as a result of St. Thomas's efforts, was turned into a church. Pieces of broken idols and remnants of the old temple were lying around the church till a short time ago. Two large tanks, one on the eastern side of the church and the other near the western gate, are tell-tale relics of the ancient glory of the Hindu temple." D'Souza was writing in 1983 and includes pictures of the old temple walls, well and tank in his book. He is blaming St. Thomas for the templeâbreaking activities of the Portuguese and Syrian Christians.

(2) Jeebus sells his own twin brother on into slavery:
In the Myth of St Thomas, Ishwar Sharan writes about the Acts of Thomas
http://hamsa.org/02.htm
QUOTEIt may have been reasonable for Bardesanes to set the protagonist of his Gnostic romance, Didymus Judas Thomas, in India, as he was a student of Indian philosophy. But it is really not known what he meant by this geographical designation, as we will see, and except for the Persian namesâor their Greek equivalent if it is a Greek version of the Actsâthe idiom and atmosphere of the book are entirely West Asian with Roman cultural overtones (like having the characters lie at table to eat and drink).
...
Indeed, the text runs to 74 printed pages. We begin a summary of it with Mead, who writes, "The Apostle Judas Thomas, or the Twin of Jesus,[5] is fabled to have received India by lot for his apostolic sphere of work. Thomas at first does not wish to go, but is sold by Jesus his master, to a trader from the East as a slave skilled in carpentry."According to that same traditional christian literature (Acts) jeebus is a slave-trader:
http://hamsa.org/appendix2.htm (this page is Koenraad Elst)
QUOTEFrom those Christian polemists insisting on the St. Thomas narrative's historicity (I will be the first to welcome the unexpected demonstration of the historicity of traditions dismissed as "myths"), we may at least expect that they tell their prospective converts the whole of the story. They should not omit that it describes Thomas as Jesus's twin brother (implying that Jesus was not God's Only Begotten Son) and as an anti-social character who exhausted his royal protector's patience by luring many women away from their families; and that it relates how Jesus was a slave-trader who was not even above selling his own brother.Now we know by clear illustration what the jeebus character meant when his writers have him say that his prospective followers must abandon if not turn against their family. Jeebus has set the example.

Jeebus' "Twin Thomas Didymus" (in English that would be "Twin Twin Twin") was also into slavery - in spite of wishful modern christian rewriting of the original version of their own myth:
http://hamsa.org/12.htm
QUOTEIn an Indian Express article called "In Memory of a Slain Saint', in 1989, C.A. Simon writes, "The oppressed and the downtrodden followed [St. Thomas] and claimed equal status in society as it was denied them by the prevailing social norms. He condemned untouchability and attempted to restore equal status for women."

C.A. Simon's assertion is pure invention of course. St. Thomas was executed for crimes against society â whether in India or Parthia it does not matter hereâand these crimes included the subversion of family life, enslavement of free-born women in the name of Jesus, and sorcery. Untouchability is still rampant among "St. Thomas" Christians today and has the sanction of the Church in the form of a bull issued by Pope Gregory XV (1621-1623) authorizing caste divisions within Catholic life. Indeed, the repressive social and religious theories contained in the Acts of Thomas and earlier Gospel of Thomas[36]âwhich confines St. Thomas to Palestineâand in the New Testament itself, show these preposterous claims for St. Thomas to be motivated additions to a fable that is already overburdened with moralistic wonders.A clearer paragraph confirming that last:
http://hamsa.org/StThomas_Chapt_4.htm
QUOTEThis new role for St. Thomas is absurd, and whatever the merits of the new ideology-and they are doubtful-neither Jesus nor his brother Judas Thomas can be presented as champions of the oppressed and downtrodden if we are to believe the Acts of Thomas. Its first verses record that Thomas was sold into slavery by the very Jesus whose 'message of liberation' he is supposed to have brought to India. The Acts then describe how he enslaves the aristocratic women he converts and destroys their families. Finally we learn that this is the reason that King Mazdai of Parthia has him executedâand it is a good reason.
Evil is as evil does, I say. Conclusion: both fictional characters aren't just anti-heroes, they make for nasty villains. Who'd ever want to follow jeebus or respect someone like apostle thomas, however fictional these characters may be? It's bad even as a story, unless the moral is to avoid such persons entirely.

Those German filmmakers should make their movie about Jeebus the Slave-Trader who even deals in relatives, and his Twin the Slave-Maker Thomas Didymus. Should make for great viewing and be a real revelation for the global and Indian flock - it's good for them to learn some more about traditional christian literature.

Shambhu · (This post was last modified: 01-01-2008, 12:22 PM by Shambhu.)

I saw the movie Goal. Waste of Arshad Warsi's talents. Worse than documentary. Some may like that Dan dana dan song, Ok, but that is it.

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 01-02-2008, 06:41 AM by Bharatvarsh.)

"Mahesh Bhatt ties up with Pak company for film on Benazir

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/256507.html "

what a scumbag.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 01-02-2008, 10:12 AM by dhu.)

QUOTEJODHA AKBAR now being touted as a great love story was never such. It was infact a shameful chapter of Indian History wherein weak and inept Hindu Kings for the protection of their Kingship shamelessly placed their sisters and daughters on the beds of the foreign Mughal Invaders. One must never forget that Akbar was a direct descendant to Babur and thus belonged to a line of Foreign kings who had enslaved and conquered India and the Indians through guile and treachary in War. Akbar was not indeginious to India and never really concerned with the prosperity of India, as is incorrectly depicted in the Movie and in our Histroy texts, (which by the way were manufactured by the ruling British to impress a certain thought process upon Hindu minds), but was only concerned with maintaining and expanding the stronghold of Muslim rule in India, becuase had this not been the case there would have been no Military campaigns during his rule into territories in India which were not controlled by the Mughals. And again as is incorrectly depicted in the movie he never physically took part in any of the armed campaigns against the Hindu Kings who resisted him.

Had Akbar been truly as great as he is touted out to be, he would have never sent Military campaigns against those Kings and regions which were not under his control and which did not accept him as Emperor of India. So my first point is that I dont know why Ashuotosh Gowitrikar has made this movie glorifying Akbar who was actually a Foreign Invader and a womaniser, let me remind all my fellow Indians that AKBAR WAS NOT AN INDIAN AND WAS NOT GREAT! HIS MARRYING OF BEAUTIFUL HINDU WOMEN, SISTERS AND DAUGHTERS OF WEAK AND CORRUPT HINDU KINGS TO INCLUDE IN HIS HAREM IS A SHAME UPON ALL HINDU PEOPLE AND THIS MOVIE IS LIKE RUBBING SALT INTO OUR WOUNDS. MORESO BY GLORIFYING AKBAR WE DO GRAVE INJUSTICE TOWARDS THE HINDU KINGS, WARRIORS, WOMEN & CHILDREN WHO DIED FIGHTING HIS FORCES TO DEFEND OUR LANDS. WHO CHOSE TO SACRIFICE THEMSELVES RATHER THAN BOW DOWN!

THE BRAVE SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF MEWAR, OF CHITTORGARH, THE BHILS WHO FAUGHT ALONGSIDE THE GREAT MAHARANA PRATAP AND THE GREAT MAHARANA HIMSELF ,( "Maharana Pratap Singh (was) called the light and life of the Hindu community.) ALL OF WHOM SACRIFICED WITH THEIR BLOOD AND FAUGHT TILL DEATH AGAINST THE FOREIGNER AKBAR FOR THEIR HONOUR FOR THEIR COUNTRY FOR THEIR RELIGION, THEY CANNOT BE SHAMED, THEIR SACRIFICE CANNOT BE FORGOTTEN , THEY ARE THE REAL HEROES OF HINDUSTAN AND YET TODAY BY GLORIFYING AKBAR BY GLORIFYING A TIME WHICH SHOULD BE THE MOST SHAMEFUL PERIOD IN HISTORY FOR THE HINDU PEOPLE, WE INSULT THE SACIFICE OF OUR FOREFATHERS, WE INSULT OUR OWN SELVES.

THEREFORE IT IS MY CALL TO ALL PATRIOTIC HINDUS WHOSO EVER READS THIS WILL BOYCOTT THE MOVIE JODHA AKBAR FOR IT IS A SHAME ON TO US, IT IS A SHAME ONTO OUR HEROES WHO DIED FIGHTING AKBAR TO DEFEND OUR LANDS POUR FAITH. WE WILL NOT ALLOW THIS ISLAMIST PROPOGANDA TO SUCCEED, THIS MOVIE MUST FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

continued ....

Login




Remember me Lost Password?