Medieval History

Husky · (This post was last modified: 01-05-2009, 06:23 AM by Husky.)

QUOTE(Swamy G @ Dec 27 2008, 08:03 PM)It is "said" that a Pandayan King put 8000 Jaina monks to death - by impaling them. The King was a Jain. But his wife and his ministers were Hindus. The Queen and her Ministere invites Jannasambandar (a Hindu) to the Kingdom. After some "miracles" and debates he converts the King back to Hinduism. After this the King is "supposed" to have impaled the Jaina monks.

KAN considers this as a legend and does not admit this as History. Another tamil writer considers that people have mistook the word "ennayaram" to be eigth thousand, whereas it is actually a place.

But several folks do not consider this to be a legend.

What is the ruling of the members here? Would you say since there is a painting on this subject, it can be assumed there is some truth to the story. Or would you say the entire thing is a fiction? Or there is some truth, but the number 8000 is hugely exaggerated?

The north west wall: http://web.mac.com/mvbhaskar/Naayakaa/No..._Wall.html

The actual picture in discussion: http://web.mac.com/mvbhaskar/Naayakaa/Digi...ace_Part_6.html
[right][snapback]92294[/snapback][/right]Swamy G, can't you tell the whole thing. In fact, I won't do it - being a Tamizh non-Jaina Hindu myself people will think I am biased. I will let Koenraad Elst do it.

http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch7.htm
QUOTEThe most important and well-known case of ï¿½persecution of Jainsï¿½ is mentioned by Romila Thapar: ï¿½The Shaivite saint Jnana Sambandar is attributed with having converted the Pandya ruler from Jainism to Shaivism, whereupon it is said that 8,000Jainas were impaled by the king.ï¿½43 To this, Sita Ram Goel points out that she omits crucial details: that this king, Arikesari Parankusa Maravarman, is also described as having first persecuted Shaivas, when he himself was a Jain; that Sambandar vanquished the Jainas not in battle but in debate, which was the occasion for the king to convert from Jainism to Shaivism (wagers in which the second or a third party promises to convert if you win the debate are not uncommon in Indiaï¿½s religious literature); and that Sambandar had escaped Jain attempts to kill him.44 This Shaiva-Jaina conflict was clearly not a one-way affair, and as per the very tradition invoked by Prof. Thapar, Jains themselves had been the aggressors.

It is even a matter of debate whether this persecution has occurred at all.Â Nilakanth Shastri, in his unchallenged History of South India, writes about it: "This, however, is little more than an unpleasant legend and cannot be treated as history.ï¿½45 Admittedly, this sounds like Percival Spearï¿½s statement that Aurangzebï¿½s persecutions are ï¿½little more than a hostile legendï¿½46: a sweeping denial of a well-attested persecution.Â However, Mr. Spearï¿½s contention is amply disproves by contemporary documents including firmans (royal decrees) and eye-witness accounts, and by the archaeological record, e.g. the destruction of the Kashi Vishvanath temple in Varanasi by Aurangzeb is attested by the temple remains incorporated in the Gyanvapi mosque built on its site.Â Such evidence has not been offered in the case of Jnana Sambandar at all.Â On the contrary: ï¿½Interestingly, the persecution of Jains in the Pandya country finds mention only in Shaiva literature, and is not corroborated by Jain literature of the same or subsequent period.ï¿½47

On the other hand, the historicity of the Jain-Shaiva conflict in general is confirmed by Shaiva references to more cases of Jain aggression, none of which is mentioned by Romila Thapar.Â Dr. Usha Sivapriya, before duly quoting classical Tamil sources, argues that the literatures posterior to Manikkavasaghar (an ancient Tamil sage, author of Thiruvasagham) ï¿½had plenty of reference to the nature, torture and terrorism of Jaina missionaries and rulers in Tamil kingdomï¿½.48 It all started with the invasion by Kharavela, king of Kalinga, at the turn of the Christian era: ï¿½Kharavela defeated the Tamil kings headed by Pandiyans and captured Madhurai. The Kalinga or Vadugha king enforced Jaina rule in Tamil kingdom.Â People were forcibly converted at knifepoint, temples were demolished or locked down, devotees were tortured and killed.ï¿½49

And it continued intermittently for centuries under Pandya and Pallava rule: ï¿½When the Digambara Jaina missionaries had failed in converting the masses, they tried to torture and kill them. (ï¿½) After failing in the attempt of converting Pandiyans the Digambara Jains tried to kill the Pandiyan Kings through various means, by sending a dangerous snake, wild bull and mad elephant.ï¿½50

Dr. Sivapriya links the advent of Jainism in Tamil Nadu with an episode of conquest by non-Tamils. Goel adds: ï¿½The persecution of Jains in the Pandya country by some Shaivas had nothing to do with Shaivism as such, but was an expression of a nationalist conflict which I will relate shortly.Â What 1 want to point out first is that most of the royal dynasties which ruled in India after the breakdown of the Gupta Empire and before the advent of Islamic invaders, were Shaiva (ï¿½). The Jains are known to have flourished everywhere; not a single instance of the Jains being persecuted under any of these dynasties is known. (ï¿½) M. Arunachalam, in a monograph published eight years before Professor Thapar delivered the lectures which comprise her pamphlet (ï¿½) has proved conclusively, with the help of epigraphic and literary evidence, that the Kalabhara invaders from Karnataka had occupied Tamil Nadu for 300 years (between AD 250 and 550), and that they subscribed to the Digambara sect of Jainism.ï¿½51

So, this is where ï¿½nationalistï¿½ resentment against the conquerors came to coincide with resentment against Jainism: ï¿½It so happened that some of the Kalabhara princes were guided by a few narrow-minded Jain ascetics, and inflicted injuries on some Shaiva and Vaishnava saints and places of worship.Â They also took away the agrahÃ¢ras which Brahmanas had enjoyed in earlier times.Â And a reaction set in when the Kalabharas were overthrown.Â The new rulers who rose subscribed to Shaivism.Â It was then that the Jains were persecuted in some places, and some Jain places of worship were taken over by the Shaivas under the plea that these were Shaiva places in the earlier period.ï¿½52

In such cases, ï¿½Professor Thapar does not mention the Jain high-handedness which had preceded. (... ) Professor Thapar should have mentioned the persecution of Shaivas practised earlier by the Pandya king who was a Jain to start with, and who later on converted to Shaivism and persecuted the Jains.Â This is another case of suppressio verb suggestio falsi practised very often by her school.ï¿½53

To clinch the issue and confirm that the Pandya incident of persecution of Jains is atypical and disconnected from Hindu doctrines, Goel adds: ï¿½But the reaction was confined to the Pandya country. Jainism continued to flourish in northern Tamil Nadu which also had been invaded by the Kalabharas, where also the Shaivas and Vaishnavas had been molested by the Jains, and where also the Shaivas had come to power once again.Â It is significant that though Buddhists also invite invectives in the same Shaiva literature, no instance of Buddhists being persecuted is recorded.Â That was because Buddhists had never harmed the Shaivas.Â It is also significant that the Vaishnavas of Tamil Nadu show no bitterness against the Jains though they had also suffered under Kalabhara rule.ï¿½54 

After going over other cases/allegations/narratives of Hindus and/or Jains bullying each other, Elst writes with reference to Goel:
QUOTENot much is left of the allegation of ï¿½Hindu persecution of Jainsï¿½, and in that light, Goelï¿½s conclusion must be considered relatively modest: ï¿½It is nobodyï¿½s case that there was never any conflict between the sects and sub-sects of Sanatana Dharma.Â Some instances of persecution were indeed there.Â Our plea is that they should be seen in a proper perspective, and not exaggerated in order to whitewash or counterbalance the record of Islamic intolerance.Â Firstly, the instances are few and far between when compared to those listed in Muslim annals.Â Secondly, those instances are spread over several millennia (ï¿½) Thirdly, none of those instances were inspired by a theology (ï¿½) Fourthly, Jains were not always the victims of persecution; they were persecutors as well once in a while.Â Lastly, no king or commander or saint who showed intolerance has been a Hindu hero, while Islam has hailed as heroes only those characters who excelled in intolerance.ï¿½63

And even if all the claims of a Hindu persecution of Jains had been true, they would still not prove the non-Hindu character of Jainism.Â From the history of Christianity, Islam and Communism, great persecutors of outsiders to their own doctrines, we know numerous instances where the worst invective and the choicest tortures were reserved for alleged heretics within their own fold.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 01-12-2009, 06:40 PM by Husky.)

Bodhi, Rajesh_G's #100 for you
Swamy G, #101 for you

Bodhi, for you again:
QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 27 2008, 09:34 PM)Then there is something called fate!Â Read Todd's Annals of Rajasthan, where he records several instances where fate was simply against the Hindus, including in the second battle of Tarrain.[right][snapback]92296[/snapback][/right]Fate? Pre-destination seems rather an unnecessary and drastic explanation.
Did you rather mean circumstance and ill-fortune ("a series of unfortunate events" and adverse factors), Bodhi?

QUOTESo, the failure does not lie there at all. The failure lies elsewhere - in inability of Hindu intellectuals in being able to grasp this creed called Islam. There is no worthwhile account telling anything about evaluation and strategic understanding of the idea behing Islam by any contemporary brAhmaNa, jaina or bauddha scholarsI certainly agree with your assessment that Hindus/Dharmics have always suffered from one constant and fatal weakness when it comes to the terrorist ideology: they just don't get it. As a body, Dharmics have *never* 'got' christoislamism, not even now (I'm talking of the general populace here, not about IF, of course).

They don't study it, but still they assume they know it: they assume that it is the individual terrorist followers and not the religion that is to blame for every christoislamic crime. And then they proceed to be amazed at how its followers can behave so abysmally.
They will always accord the terrorist ideology surrounding the non-existent jeebusjehovallah a valid position, secure from criticism, and then wonder why, oh why do the terrorist followers not follow their ideology/gawd "better". It looks as if they feel it is wrong to criticise any religion (even one they don't take the pains of knowing), because they think all religions must have in their essence something good, that there can be no God or great teacher who can demand and command the cruellest things from its earthly followers. But jeebusjehovallah+mohammed combine is exactly such an ideological centre, the sort of terrorist centre that Dharmics had never previously encountered nor imagined existed.

But scholarship was not all that was wanting. A deep reading of the koran and babble is not *sufficient* to convince the Dharmics of the evil of the ideology itself, I think. (More is sometimes needed to drive this home, especially for the stubborn Dharmics who insist on automatically thinking well of every religion.) For that, I am convinced one needs to couple the reading of the koran-babble junk with a wider knowledge of how the twin plagues of christianism and islam treated the rest of the world. This second part was not available to the ancient Hindus, though they would at least have heard horrors of how it treated their own brethren in other parts of Bharatam.

However, we have fewer excuses now, as Dharmics of our time can actually know the terrorist ideology better: there is enough data available to us in books and web pages on how christoislamism had overrun the world in history and continues to do so now - sowing only discord and destruction wherever it lands - to prove that the gruesome theory of the koran-babble is *always* put into gory effect by the infected zombies "converts".

01-05-2009, 06:20 AM

Husky: The issue transcends Romila Thapar. It is not about what she said or she did not. Bringing her merely distracts the issue and which is - did the Hindu King really impale so many Jaina Monks?

I have read about Kings under Jaina being anti-Shaivites. Is there any evidence that narrates the kind of activities? Like the painting that I provided?

As I mentioned earlier, KAN does not give any credence to the issue. He is the SME as far as the Cholas go. For Pandyas?

Goel's argument that it was not because of Shaivism but because of national conflicts, might be true. But I have seen several arguments (in yahoo groups) that take similar stances on the atrocities committed by Islamic hordes. Like it is war and looting onlee - which all the Indic kings did too.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 01-05-2009, 06:38 AM by Husky.)

QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jan 5 2009, 06:20 AM)Husky: The issue transcends Romila Thapar. It is not about what she said or she did not. Bringing her merely distracts the issue and which is - did the Hindu King really impale so many Jaina Monks?[right][snapback]92691[/snapback][/right]Did you read the entire excerpt, it considers just that. And no, it is not about Romila Thapar, but goes over the accusations both she and others brought forward.

QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jan 5 2009, 06:20 AM)I have read about Kings under Jaina being anti-Shaivites. Is there any evidence that narrates the kind of activities? Like the painting that I provided?

As I mentioned earlier, KAN does not give any credence to the issue. He is the SME as far as the Cholas go. For Pandyas?

Goel's argument that it was not because of Shaivism but because of national conflicts, might be true. But I have seen several arguments (in yahoo groups) that take similar stances on the atrocities committed by Islamic hordes. Like it is war and looting onlee - which all the Indic kings did too.
[right][snapback]92691[/snapback][/right]Read the entire section titled
7.9. Did Hindus demolish Jain temples?
at http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch7.htm
It looks at those questions that you brought up and additionally clearly shows how it is all ENTIRELY different from islam. (I appended a relevant quote to do with this to my #101 before noticing your latest post).

What is KAN and SME?

QUOTEBringing her merely distracts the issue and which is - did the Hindu King really impale so many Jaina Monks?
[...]
What is the ruling of the members here? Would you say since there is a painting on this subject, it can be assumed there is some truth to the story. Or would you say the entire thing is a fiction? Or there is some truth, but the number 8000 is hugely exaggerated?I wasn't aware that facts - be they of history or the present - can merely be decided upon by opinion and democratic voting?

01-05-2009, 09:15 AM

Yes, I read the entire section "7.Are Jains Hindus?" There is nothing new in the entire section (especially 7.9) that I did not know or already acknowledge. I already knew Nilakanta Sastri's views. I have the book that is cited in the exerpt. But that book was written long ago, and I was hoping to see new information.

KAN - K.A.Nilakanta Sastri {the same scholar referred in your quote}
SME - Subject Matter Expert.

No asking for a ruling from members does not decide upon what had already happened. I was seeking opinions from you all.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 01-05-2009, 10:07 AM by Bodhi.)

QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Jan 5 2009, 03:38 AM)Bodhiji

Sometime ago when I read Dharampal's books he mentioned something interesting regarding the military strategies.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEDharampal offers an interesting perspective on why India languished militarily. He indicates that Indian society contributed very little revenue to the military and mostly had local systems. I cant remember where I read it but just as a note to myself. I think he mentioned that most areas had about 5% allocation for the rajyas. Aurangzeb increased revenues to about 20% of agri produce. Marathas and Vijayanagara kingdoms also tried to raise the share of revenues but in the end were not very successful. Brits had about 40-50% taxation.
[right][snapback]92680[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Rajesh Ji,

kauTalya has laid down elaborately how kings should collect the revenue, and if I remember right, then about the spending on the forces too. But let us understand that the Hindu nation was not overly-federalist as we see it in imperial colonist countries. True, a chakravartin had to prove himself the lord over other rulers, but there existed pretty much an accepted mode of shared governance, reducing the need for huge standing armies and expenditure.

In artha-shAstra, kauTalya also tells about setting up self-sustained macro-economies of each village-town. Each village has its own independant economic system without having any dependence from center, including the police and "armed men".

Also, the traditional military composition was based on a standing army and a reserve army. Many of the militarymen were not paid full time soldiers as it is these days. They were of course trained soldiers, but who were granted by the King, lands and other economic means to support themselves during the time of peace, and called to the fight when the time of war came. This arrangement meant less burden on central exchequer too. (The model probably would have became unsustainable of course, in later periods when their scale was unable to meet the demand from the invasions.)

Likewise, remember that the infantry weapons factories were also allowed to sell weaponry to public, besides supplying to the king's army. So you have mentions of several arrow-makers and sword makers doing this as a business -- and in this model too, king need to spend less (or collect revenue for) maintaining a dedicated source of infantry-scale weapons, besides maybe foundaries for artillery.

Also the "private property" and right to protect it by individuals, meant less burden on the king's revenue. We hear of wealthy merchants and guilds of shreShThI-s having their own personal armies to protect their own ports, storehouses, even townships and in-transit sArtha-s. King could always call their forces in too, and they could come to the king for protection as well. But again, not over-reliance on the King's army. (If I remember I read it in one of the works of R C Majumdar, will confirm when I get the time).

(My understanding and I may be all wrong.)

Husky · (This post was last modified: 01-05-2009, 06:25 PM by Husky.)

Swamy G (post 103, 105):

a. From the Elst quoteblock just below (reprise):
1. Shaiva literature says the Jainas were impaled. But apparently Jaina literature does not mention it.
2. Shaiva literature says the Jainas started the aggression. (Don't know if Jaina lit mentions this.)

http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch7.htm
QUOTEOn the contrary:Â Interestingly, the persecution of Jains in the Pandya country finds mention only in Shaiva literature, and is not corroborated by Jain literature of the same or subsequent period. 47

On the other hand, the historicity of the Jain-Shaiva conflict in general is confirmed by Shaiva references to more cases of Jain aggression, none of which is mentioned by Romila Thapar.Â Dr. Usha Sivapriya, before duly quoting classical Tamil sources, argues that the literatures posterior to Manikkavasaghar (an ancient Tamil sage, author of Thiruvasagham)Â had plenty of reference to the nature, torture and terrorism of Jaina missionaries and rulers in Tamil kingdom .48 It all started with the invasion by Kharavela, king of Kalinga, at the turn of the Christian era:Â Kharavela defeated the Tamil kings headed by Pandiyans and captured Madhurai. The Kalinga or Vadugha king enforced Jaina rule in Tamil kingdom.Â People were forcibly converted at knifepoint, temples were demolished or locked down, devotees were tortured and killed. 49

b. From the link you gave
*Shaiva* paintings depict the event and these paintings are from a later time (both paintings mentioned here seem to be separated from the timing of the event by several centuries at the least):
http://web.mac.com/mvbhaskar/Naayakaa/No..._Wall.html
QUOTEThe debate is between the Jaina school of thought and Hindu belief, a historic phase attributed to 7th century CE,

This theme is painted, one thousand years after the incident, on the north western wall, on the first tier, at Tiruppudaimaruduur. This is preceded in mural painting form in the Big Temple of Tanjaavuur, centuries before Tiruppudaimaruduur. In Tirucchenduur, a shrine for Murugan, the incident is sculpted. It is most likely that it is found in a few other places and times as well.If the Shaiva text mentioning the narrative is taken as fact - and the paintings that are made later are obviously only referencing those, since Elst says Jaina texts are silent on it - then the paintings are not 'extra' evidence. They are merely working with the original source (text/tradition) as reference point.
So you're *still* left with only 1 data point: the Shaiva text/Shaiva traditions regarding this. (And if that is taken as true, then the other bit can be taken as equally true: that the Digambara Jainas initiated the strife.)

c. The Shaiva king who tormented the 8,000 Jainas used to previously torment Shaivas when he was still a Jaina. So it doesn't seem to depend on which tradition he adhered to, he seems to have behaved the same way in both cases, regardless of what religious tradition he was following. (Perhaps it's just a reflection of his character rather than anything else?) After all, if testimony against his post-conversion self can be used, then testimony against his pre-conversion character is just as admissable:
http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch7.htm (another repeat)
QUOTEThe Shaivite saint Jnana Sambandar is attributed with having converted the Pandya ruler from Jainism to Shaivism, whereupon it is said that 8,000Jainas were impaled by the king. 43 To this, Sita Ram Goel points out that she omits crucial details: that this king, Arikesari Parankusa Maravarman, is also described as having first persecuted Shaivas, when he himself was a Jain; that Sambandar vanquished the Jainas not in battle but in debate, which was the occasion for the king to convert from Jainism to Shaivism (wagers in which the second or a third party promises to convert if you win the debate are not uncommon in India s religious literature); and that Sambandar had escaped Jain attempts to kill him.44 This Shaiva-Jaina conflict was clearly not a one-way affair, and as per the very tradition invoked by Prof. Thapar, Jains themselves had been the aggressors.
d. QUOTEGoel's argument that it was not because of Shaivism but because of national conflicts, might be true. But I have seen several arguments (in yahoo groups) that take similar stances on the atrocities committed by Islamic hordes. Like it is war and looting onlee - which all the Indic kings did too.Surely it can't be hard to definitively argue how the islamaniacs (or pseculars/cryptos) defending islamania are wrong? After all, all facts, observation and reason support that the situation among Dharmics is entirely different from the islamic case:

1. Do the Gods or sacred Hindu literature tell the Hindus to convert-or-kill the Jainas or take their property/invade their space? Do the teachings of the Tirtankaras tell the Jainas to convert-or-kill the Hindus or take their property/invade their space? No.
2. Did Hindus uniformly persecute the Jaina subcommunity throughout India in the past? Did Jainas uniformly persecute Hindus throughout India in the past? No.
3. Where are Jainas forcibly converting or otherwise persecuting Hindus today? Where are Hindus forcibly converting or otherwise persecuting Jainas today? Nowhere.

Whereas:
1. The fictitious islamic gawd jeebusjehovallah and its puppeteer/puppet Mohammed and his Koran command the faithful to convert-or-kill all unbelievers and invade their lands, take their property or enslave them. (For evidence, check out Ali Sina's site "Faithfreedom.org" and Ibn Warraq's archived secularislam )
2. Islamania uniformly persecuted all unbelievers wherever it went in the past - not just in Bharatam, but Persia, Turkestan, Byzantine, ....
Again, secularislam has some examples and historyofjihad has a longer listing by population/country victimised by islamism
3. Islam is still uniformly terrorising non-islamic populations throughout the world: Thai Buddhists, Dharmics in Bharatam, TSP and BD, Phillipinos, Hindus of Bali, Serbs, Russians via Chechnya... Check the news, or somewhere on IF for examples of all of these.

And finally, I post this bit again where Elst quoted Sita Ram Goel since it expresses the points better than I can:
http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch7.htm
QUOTE[...]
Not much is left of the allegation ofÂ Hindu persecution of Jains , and in that light, Goel s conclusion must be considered relatively modest:Â It is nobody s case that there was never any conflict between the sects and sub-sects of Sanatana Dharma.Â Some instances of persecution were indeed there.Â Our plea is that they should be seen in a proper perspective, and not exaggerated in order to whitewash or counterbalance the record of Islamic intolerance.Â Firstly, the instances are few and far between when compared to those listed in Muslim annals.Â Secondly, those instances are spread over several millennia ( ) Thirdly, none of those instances were inspired by a theology ( ) Fourthly, Jains were not always the victims of persecution; they were persecutors as well once in a while.Â Lastly, no king or commander or saint who showed intolerance has been a Hindu hero, while Islam has hailed as heroes only those characters who excelled in intolerance. 63
One more thing to add to the above - and yes, it does matter. The islamic genocide/enslavement of 'infidels' in any area that the mania terrorised has been either TOTAL or had a toll of incredibly high figures. (And it was always due to islamania driving the tyrants.) Some examples:
From historian Will Durant's Story of Civilization:
QUOTE(Sultanate of Delhi)
The first of these bloody sultans, Kutb-d Din Aibak, was a normal specimen of
his kind--fanatical, ferocious and merciless. His gifts, as the Mohammedan
historian tells us, "were bestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his
slaughters likewise were by hundreds of thousands."
[...]
Firoz Shah, invaded Bengal, offered a reward for every Hindu
head, paid for 180,000 of them, raided Hindu villages for slaves, and
died at the ripe age of eighty. Sultan Ahmad Shah feasted for three days
whenever the number of defenseless Hindus slain in his territories in one
day reached twenty thousand
[...]
(Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak) laid (the country) to waste with pillage and murder till the inhabitants fled to
the jungle. He killed so many Hindus that, in the words of a Moslem
historian, "there was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil
Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers
and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging" the victims
"and putting them to death in crowds."secularislam site again
QUOTEAt the battle of Somnath, the site of another celebrated Hindu temple, 50000 were killed as Mahmud assuaged his lust for booty.
[...]
At Delhi under the pretext that the hundred thousand Hindu prisoners presented a grave risk to his army, Tamerlane ordered their execution in cold blood.The Travels of Ibn Batutah (travelogue of the historical "14th century muslim traveller") - Edited by Tim Mackintosh
QUOTE"Another reason for our halt was fear of the snow. For upon this road there is a mountain called Hindukush, which means 'the slayer of the Indians 'because the slave boys and girls who are brought from the land of India die there in large numbers as a result of the extreme cold and the great quantity of snow ".
There can be no comparison. Situations of aggression among Dharmics in Bharatam or between Natural Traditionalists elsewhere cannot in any way be compared to the devastating ideologically-inspired/instigated terrorism inflicted by christoislamism on the "unsaved infidels".

~~Pandyan~~ · (This post was last modified: 01-05-2009, 05:50 PM by Pandyan.)

QUOTEBodhiji

Sometime ago when I read Dharampal's books he mentioned something interesting regarding the military strategies.

QUOTEDharampal offers an interesting perspective on why India languished militarily. He indicates that Indian society contributed very little revenue to the military and mostly had local systems. I cant remember where I read it but just as a note to myself. I think he mentioned that most areas had about 5% allocation for the rajyas. Aurangzeb increased revenues to about 20% of agri produce. Marathas and Vijayanagara kingdoms also tried to raise the share of revenues but in the end were not very successful. Brits had about 40-50% taxation. 

rajesh g, would you happen to know which of Dharampal's works contains the above info? Would like to read about this in depth.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 01-05-2009, 06:08 PM by Bodhi.)

QUOTE(Husky @ Jan 5 2009, 05:34 PM)At Delhi under the pretext that the hundred thousand Hindu prisoners presented a grave risk to his army, Tamerlane ordered their execution in cold blood.
[right][snapback]92712[/snapback][/right]


The weight of this barbarity has to be read directly from taymUr's memoirs to be believed. He orders the slaying of captured hindu civilians, so matter of factly, absolutely devoid of any emotion whatsoever, as if ordering a simple ditch to be dug, or horses to be armoured, or canons to be repaired. And then the gory deed is forgotten.

01-06-2009, 01:05 AM

Husky:
QUOTESo you're *still* left with only 1 data point: the Shaiva text/Shaiva traditions regarding this. (And if that is taken as true, then the other bit can be taken as equally true: that the Digambara Jainas initiated the strife.)
Agreed. We do not have much info to work with. I also agree that Jainas monks instigated a lot of this.

You are right, there is no religious sanction to commit atrocities in the Indic religious sects. Check out the yahoo groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ponniyinselvan/

The group is good, and discusses history but now and then some contemporary issues get discussed - which is not encouraged. Search for "Muslim Invaders vs Chola Invaders", you will see what I mean. And it is really not a pseduo-secular group either.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 01-06-2009, 02:29 PM by Husky.)

Just to make it clear on what I did and didn't do:
QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jan 6 2009, 01:05 AM)I also agree that Jainas monks instigated a lot of this.[right][snapback]92725[/snapback][/right]Then you must be agreeing with either Elst, Goel or the Shaiva account, because I did not proffer any views on this to be agreed or disagreed with.

1. When I said in post 101: "can't you tell the whole thing",
I meant that you can't just start in the middle of the Shaiva account with the 8000 Jainas being impaled, because the Shaivas had more to say on what led to that event.

2. Then in my #107, I said there seemed to be only one account of both these events (of the Hindu-Jaina inter-aggression in Pandyan TN). That 1 account is of course not favourable to either side (Jainas or Hindus) - neither are looking their prettiest there/not their characteristic selves.

But veracity is another matter, and I have no interest in discussing it.

3. Finally, #107 and end of #101 was mainly about how there can be no mention of islamism in any situation where inter-Dharmic strife (or strife between any two Natural Traditions) is considered, because islamism=an ideology of terrorism and thus is a universe removed from any occasional aberrations Dharmic/Natural Traditionalist communities may throw up.
Inter-Dharmic enmity is not the goal of Dharmic traditions (nothing in there goading any of them to persecute-and-convert other traditions), whereas islam's "salvation" itself (of 72 houris) is promised in return for the destruction/conversion of the kaffirs. Jihad is their prime directive, just as the conversion-or-destruction of the unbelievers/followers of other Gods is in christianism.

QUOTEAnd it is really not a pseduo-secular group either.Cool, sounds good.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 01-06-2009, 06:29 PM by Husky.)

QUOTE(ramana @ Dec 23 2008, 12:18 AM)A few posts from BRF x-posted here...
The Jaina traditions also indicate a moralistic restrictive attitude towards exploration and military ruthlessness.

Accepting that the Palas appear to have favoured "Buddhism" over other faiths, and still waged war does not detract from the possible influence of Buddhist morals on waging war under "niti" - same could be apparent in the various central-northern Indian princes under Jaina influence - the indications of "magnanimity" or principled stand in waging war against the Muslims by the north-Indian princes shows up a weakness not seen in the Arthasastra or the legendary tactical exploits of Ashoka. The matching of Islamic tactics by ruthless deception and everything aimed at liquidation and erasure of the "enemy" was absent - time and time again we find the enemy allowed to escape, not pursued, allowed to recover, not tortured to death, not enslaved, - no enjoyment of the Sadistic torture or treatment of relatives and dependants as part of psychological warfare - no - all these are present on the Islamic side, present in theory in Arthasastra, but noweher present in the behaviour of the Indian princes. I think this is a clear indication of Buddhist and Jaina morals that modified and restricted strategic and tactical flexibility in warfare from the Indian side.[right][snapback]92108[/snapback][/right]What is this about Hindus not having morals but only Jainas and Bauddhas having it? Hindu code of warfare was very ethical.
And where in Kshatriya Dharma was anyone allowed to do any sadistic torture of enemies let alone enjoy it? They vanquished their enemies and that's it.
Even the later Mahabharata code of war is rather straightforward and has laws against attacking people in unequal combat (foot soldier can't be attacked by mounted person, that sort of thing), and from what I recall has laws against attacking non-war animals as well (that is, war elephants were enemy, but not chariot horses).

Christoislamania's total war is different, but there's no cause to behave like Total Losers. Of course, terrorists of the christoislamaniac persuasion deserve no ethical treatment. But against islamic terrorists or christo NLFT/Orissan christo-maoist terrorists, I see no reason for prolonging their life by torturing them. Indian forces just need to shoot them/blow them up and be done with it.
Are they that important to make a monster of oneself by inflicting unnecessary extra pain? Besides, it is against Hindu traditions. They deserve death, merely need to give it to them. This is not that 60s(?) Batman show where the villains go on and on about the elaborate methods they've devised for how they're going to do in the dynamic duo.

Psychological warfare against christoislamaniacs is easy: after they're dead, cremate them. The others of their terrorist intent will flip if they hear there's no chance of them getting to heaven (need a body for christoislamics to get up on judgement day; that's why cremation is so banned and feared in christianism) and the same is kinda true for islamaniacs. And then can do Hindu death rites on the bodies before cremation. Islamaniacs will consider such bodies kaffirised forever <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />
Or, if we're going to give extra consideration for the islamaniac terrorists, then - instead of the pig fat suggested (which would require poor pigs to be dead first) - can have piggies dump their manure on islamic terrorists' dead bodies. Then cremate them.
Probably good for the environment too.

ADDED:
And christoislamaniacs want to play martyr and shaheed. Being tortured is their second greatest wish (torturing heathens is their number one). It makes their glory and the glory of their non-existent gawd appear greater to them, as if they are the ones suffering for their 'faith' - when in reality they are tormenting everyone else. Terrorists are a civilian and national threat, need to let the armed forces neutralise them - not play to their expectations and wishes. Christoislamism is an ideology focussed on blood and gore - only blood and gore makes them happy. If one gives them shaheeds and martyrs, more of them will join up and come forward to play dead martyr.
Do what Julian did - don't ignore them, but never give them the chance to take the role of drama queen. Law and order should ensure death for the terrorists, but christoislamism *itself* is the real problem. When the ideology is defeated, then there will be no terrorists. Real success in the war - the way people can win totally and humiliate and defeat christoislamism completely - is when we deconvert its sheepish ummah, and universally expose the ideology itself as the most undesirable deformity ever to have marred the earth.

01-06-2009, 10:27 PM

Husky:
Aree baba, yes I agree with them; and Sahiva accounts too. You might want to argue on a technicality that you did not present your views, but your posts and references do speak louder :-) I have been reading Elst in the Yahoo groups for sometime now.

My core interest was around the number 8000. As I knew the bickering between the groups - Jainas and Shaivas, and hence I did not have any interest on focusing the "whole thing".

Husky · 01-07-2009, 12:28 PM

QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jan 6 2009, 10:27 PM)but your posts and references do speak louder :-)[right][snapback]92757[/snapback][/right]See, it's exactly because I am biased in this case (natural) that I refuse to give my view, as it can't help anyone in their research.

QUOTEAree babaWhat's baba? Oh no, not a baby is it.... Grrrr. Forever haunted by kindergarten. You're the baba <!--emo& Wink

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

**acharya** · 02-14-2009, 12:59 AM

http://www.historyofjihad.org/india.html?syf=contact

Fierce and persistent Hindu resistance to the Islamic Jihad prevented the complete Islamization of India

Unlike the complete Islamization of Persia, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Turkey, North Africa, the Islamization of India was never complete. After more than one millennium of Muslim Tyranny from 715 up to 1761, more than 70 percent of the population of India remained Hindu. This was NOT due to any Muslim charity or benevolence, since the murderous and savage beastlike Muslims have none of these characteristics.

The Muslim tyranny in India was as blood-thirsty and insidious as it was in all parts of the globe that were unfortunate to be trampled by the Jihadis. The Hindus suffered initial setbacks due to the innocuous but ill-founded belief amongst them, as amongst all other non-Muslims, that the Muslims too were normal human beings, who would after a victory, settle down to govern the defeated population. But once the nightmare of Muslim tyranny began, the Hindus grew wiser relatively faster than most of the other unfortunate victims of the Islamic Jihad.

______________________________

In the battle for Kubha (Kabul) in 980 C.E., the Muslims defeated the Hindus by using deceit. To ensure the secrecy of their advance, the Muslims had muffled the sounds of their horses by covering the hooves of their horses with felt and cloth. Dressed in black clothes the Muslims almost reached the Hindu camps at 2 A.M. at night as they knew that the Hindus did not fight from Sunset up to Sunrise. After the Hindus retired for the night, the Muslim were busy preparing for a night assault. While the Hindu army was in deep slumber, except for a few scouts, the Muslim army attacked by taking cover of the dark and stormy night. The storm entirely camouflaged the advance of the Muslims as they stealthily crept towards the Hindu camp, after crossing the few hillocks that separated the two camps.

The entire Hindu army was caught unawares, but they still put up a stiff fight against their treacherous and beastly adversaries. The battle continued till past dawn, but the Hindu army had been overpowered, tricked as it had been to give the advantage of surprise to the Muslims. By late morning the remnants of the Hindu army retreated back to their capital Kubha (Kabul), with the Muslims in hot pursuit. The Muslims soon occupied Kabul and continued to push the Hindus eastwards.

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 04-07-2009, 09:49 AM

A historical fictional narrative rather than actual history.

It was the early summer of the year 454 CE. In the city of kUbha in gandhara, a band of bauddha bikShu-s noticed that their shaiva rivals were packing up and getting ready to evacuate the pAShupata maTha. The head muNDaka who normally avoided the jaTila-s asked why they were packing up. The jaTila replied that a great storm was building on the horizon and the evils of kali yuga were to come down upon the world. The muNDaka smiled and walked on continuing his japa of the lokeshvara mantra. Later in the day he noticed that the patrons were not arriving at his vihAra. He stirred out to a neighboring vihAra where other bauddha-s were had stopped their study of the sad-dharma-puNDarIka sUtra because of some news that the king, the kedAra shAhIya had been defeated midway to bAhlika and an army of mlechCha-s was advancing towards the city. Sensing danger, the head muNDaka started organizing his flock to flee south towards suvastu. But even before he could do so, he heard an enormous clattering of hoofs and saw a great swirl of dust darkening the horizon. With in minutes the students in the court yard and the door keepers were rolling in the dust shot by arrows. The muNDaka ran inside to invoke a protective mantra from subAhu-paripR^ichCha, but even as he was entering into his ritual enclave a hideous warrior with a deformed head struck off the muNDakaâs head with his scimitar. It rolled down and fell near his altar. Another muNDaka was being threatened and asked to reveal where the wealth given by the vaishya patrons was hidden. Having bundled it up the victorious hUNa warriors uttered fierce cries and set fire to the vihara. They circled around the burning campus shooting down survivors who tried to flee the smoldering ruins.

The hUNa-s rode rapidly through gandhara, southwards pillaging the towns and slaughtering the inhabitants. A band of pAshupata shaiva ascetics fleeing from this terror crossed the sindhu river and reached a military outpost to the great emperor kumAragupta mahendrAditya. They brought news of the terrifying advance of the hUNa-s. The military outpost conveyed the message to the emperor who was holding court at Udayagiri. He had already received an envoy from the Shah of Iran with a request to supply elephants in the war against the hUNa-s, in addition to a request for Hindu mercenaries to fight the Isaists. The news from a band of bauddha refugees had also reached the emperor that the huNa-s were already poised to ford the sindhu and launch a thrust into bhAratavarSha. The emperor summoned his son the yuvarAja, skandagupta, and asked him to lead the senA to oust the mlechCha-s from the land of the Arya-s.

After having made the military preparation for the advance into the pa~nchanada to quell the hUNa-s the prince sent a messenger to the vAkATaka-s, his allies to send him a reserve force. Then he went to the cave of Udayagiri, where the god after whom he had been named was enshrined. The brAhmaNa-s drew a vijaya-maNDala and having placed the consecrated kumbha-s at its corners led skandagupta to its center. Here he was consecrated with the ShaDAkSharI mantra and asked to lead his troops even as the son of rudra led the devasenA against tAraka and mahiSha. A homa was offered to mahAsena for the victory of the prince with oblations of red sesame seeds. Blood red banners of kumAra were erected in front of the great shrine in udayagiri. Each of the sapta-mAtR^ikA-s were also offered bali-s to inspire the troops in battle, even as the mAtR^ikA-s had attacked the hordes of shumbha and nishumbha. The vAkATaka general leading the auxiliaries had invoked the terrible bhairava and consecrated his sword in shmashAna for victory in the impending battle. Thus having invoked the deva-s, four divisions of the imperial army headed for the pa~nchanada numbering around 60,000 men. The hUNa-s apparently had about 80-90,000 (the bauddha account of this war given in the text chandra-garbha-paripR^ichCha gives the exaggerated counts of the army of skandagupta being 200,000 and that of the mlechCha-s being 300,000).

In the spring of 455 CE decisive encounters between skandaguptaâs army and those of the hUNa-s took place near the banks of the sindhu in its middle reaches. The hUNa-s tried to deploy their favored tactic of firing and riding. But the disciplined imperial infantry kept its distance from the hUNa-s whose composite bows were affected by the subcontinental climate. Then the Hindu long-bow corps went into action â having greater range and power than the hUNa bows, and unaffected by the climate it had a deadly effect. In the fierce encounters which are described as having the din of the roaring ga~NgA in spate (ga~NgA dhvaniH) the Hindu archers brought down the horse-borne hUNa-s even before they could close in on the gupta warriors. After the hUNa charges were repeatedly broken by the gupta infantry which had ambushed them, skandagupta ordered the gupta cavalry to swoop on the mlechCha-s âlike garuDa-s on hUNa sarpa-s which had raised their hoodsâ. The sudden cavalry counter attack took hUNa-s by surprised and they were mercilessly put to sword. The khan of the hUNa-s ordered his men to ride out in a rapid escape, but they were ambushed by another force of infantry that skandagupta had pushed to their rear. With the reach of the long-bow they were able to strike from a distance with hail of cloth-yard shafts on the hUNa-s. Now they were utterly broken and the surging gupta cavalry surrounded the khan of the hUNa-s and two other tegins. Now khan and these tegins were summarily executed by skandagupta (Thus we may reconstruct from the chandra-garbha-paripR^ichCha) thereby ending this hUNa invasion.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 04-09-2009, 05:44 PM by Bodhi.)

QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Apr 7 2009, 09:49 AM)The emperor summoned his son the yuvarAja, skandagupta, and asked him to lead the senA to oust the mlechCha-s from the land of the Arya-s.

Then he went to the cave of Udayagiri, where the god after whom he had been named was enshrined.
[right][snapback]96179[/snapback][/right]


I recently came across two different terracota images of kumAra dating back to kumAragupta and his sons time, from mathurA. Both show kumAra in fierse posture, as if leading mahAdeva's senA. In one he is ShaNmukha riding on a flying mayUra. In the other he is ekamukha sitting on a static mayUra and looks like a brAhmaNa senApati.

QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Apr 7 2009, 09:49 AM)A historical fictional narrative rather than actual history.[right][snapback]96179[/snapback][/right]


Thank you. Please consider writing a novel. rAhula, bound in his mental prison, stands nowhere close to your narration abilities.

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 04-10-2009, 11:36 AM

QUOTEI recently came across two different terracota images of kumAra dating back to kumAragupta and his sons time, from mathurA.Â Both show kumAra in fierse posture, as if leading mahAdeva's senA.Â In one he is ShaNmukha riding on a flying mayUra.Â In the other he is ekamukha sitting on a static mayUra and looks like a brAhmaNa senApati.


Interesting- I have never seen those in life or pictures. My only trip to mathurA was when I was quite young and it was a brief one enroute to dilli. I was however given an early memorable introduction to the effects of the shashidhvaja-s in the form of the masjid squatting on the old keshavAlaya. By the time we reached the ASI museum we were out of time and saw very little. Of course mathurA was the center of a great kumAra-gR^iha that apparently came up at least as early as the shu~Nga times and continued through harSha's times. It probably vanished during ghaznavi's attack on the city.

QUOTEThank you. Please consider writing a novel.Â rAhula, bound in his mental prison, stands nowhere close to your narration abilities.

Thanks, but I fear there is still a long way to go to make it real reading.

BTW- I agree that Akbar indeed does appear dyslexic rather than dumb. He certainly was no idiot and had all the access to education. However, I am unaware of any other mogol who suffered from this condition - especially given its genetic nature. What is your take on the allA upaniShat -- it almost seems to be one of those bIrbal jokes played on the padishaw. The jagat-guru said: aham akabarho.asmi <!--emo& Big Grin

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

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 04-10-2009, 08:31 PM by Bodhi.)

QUOTEInteresting- I have never seen those in life or pictures.

By the time we reached the ASI museum we were out of time and saw very little.

Then I shall try to post some pictures I had taken of these. Unfortunately I had no camera on me, and took a couple of snaps using my cell phone. (Which is another problem as Nokia software I used to use to interchange the content between phone and PC no longer works on the Windows ver I now got... Let me see how I can get to post these images...)

These I saw not at ASI, but UP State Archeology Museum, and I believe are rather new finds (couple of decades?)

QUOTEtrip to mathurA... I was however given an early memorable introduction to the effects of the shashidhvaja-s in the form of the masjid squatting on the old keshavAlaya. 

Indeed visiting keshava-rAya temple and getting to feel the experience that you so described, must be made mandatory for every Hindu kid. For me since the days of young, visiting this site and vishvanAtha at vArANasI, remain the potent experience of what Islam is all about. I don't know how many times I have been to both of these, but each time the intensity of pang remains as intense as for the first time.

But to me the experience is a bit different. We have this old family tradition of being at mathurA every shivarAtri. Coincidentally, the local Hindus (mostly jAT kids that come from neighboring village side) celebrate every shivarAtri with much fanfare at kR^iShNa janmabhUmi and take out a grand procession, dressing themselves up like the senA of mahAdeva, the best looking teenager dressed up as mahAdeva riding on a virile bull, and crowd following him on foot. It is quite an experience to watch the procession from in front of the said mosque. Let me post some images of this year, as soon as I can have the Nokia issue fixed.

ramana · 04-11-2009, 01:43 AM

QUOTEI was however given an early memorable introduction to the effects of the shashidhvaja-s in the form of the masjid squatting on the old keshavAlaya.


My family and I had the same experience in early 1992 when we were visiting North India. I understood what happened in December that year.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?