05-06-2006, 06:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2006, 06:55 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->thats cool. we should rename the mg road in calcutta after gopal patha (the "th" is pronounced the retroflex way, as in "thakur") mukherjee. we hindus need more people like him who know how to pay muslims in thier own currency, instead of p-secs and/or pacifists who neuter the mentality of hindus. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as I am concerned, the people who played a major role in the retaliation during 1947, whether they were Hindu or Sikh were heroes of the time and defended Hindu honour from Muslim hooliganism. It's interesting to note that whenever Muslims got a solid beating, they ran and hid behind Gandhi and Nehru because they couldn't face upto the Hindu-Sikh counter attack or they simply ran away like cowards. It was only because of Gandhi and Nehru, a lot of them got saved.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+May 5 2006, 07:48 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ May 5 2006, 07:48 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Even in this forum, When I started to post excerpts about medieval muslim atrocities from authors such as Andre Wink, etc, my thread got nuked<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In last 2 years we had not deleted any thread created by you, you can start new or let me know thread title or check complete list even 2nd and 3 rd page.
Provide links in case very violent descriptive contents because this forum is also visited by Kids and students.
[right][snapback]50704[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In last 2 years we had not deleted any thread created by you, you can start new or let me know thread title or check complete list even 2nd and 3 rd page.
---
Mudy, not you, another moderator nuked my Andre Wink thread in 2003 because it was too much anti-islam, it contained excerpts from Al Hind by Andre Wink
I then went and posted it on Indian Civilization
G.S
Regarding Netaji
---
Unpopular but correct view
per Swapan Das Gupta, he was a nehruvian regarding muslims and believed in sops to the muslims
4 out of his 6 generals were muslims
45% of the INA was muslim
If Netaji had succeeded, there most likely would be a muslim junta ruling India
Netaji's brother , Sarat Chandra Bose, tried to get West Bengal inside East Pakistan as a united muslim majority bengal
He was defeated by Shyama Prasad Mukerji who insisted on a partition
Netaji's niece is a notorious anti-hindu
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Netaji's brother , Sarat Chandra Bose, tried to get West Bengal inside East Pakistan as a united muslim majority bengal
He was defeated by Shyama Prasad Mukerji who insisted on a partition
Netaji's niece is a notorious anti-hindu <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These 2 are true, I do not know about his personal views since I never read any primary sources but the last 2 points about his brother and niece are true, I will post some info regarding that soon.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+May 6 2006, 08:32 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ May 6 2006, 08:32 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Netaji's brother , Sarat Chandra Bose, tried to get West Bengal inside East Pakistan as a united muslim majority bengal
He was defeated by Shyama Prasad Mukerji who insisted on a partition
Netaji's niece is a notorious anti-hindu <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These 2 are true, I do not know about his personal views since I never read any primary sources but the last 2 points about his brother and niece are true, I will post some info regarding that soon.
[right][snapback]50733[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some of Netajis top muslim aides joined the Pakistan movement
hence Netaji's influence could not over-ride islam
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+May 6 2006, 08:10 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ May 6 2006, 08:10 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->45% of the INA was muslim
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
another 25-30% were sikh.
netaji didnt decide who'd join him and who wouldn't - most of the INA soldiers were ex-raj army fighters taken POW by the axis powers.
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+May 6 2006, 08:10 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ May 6 2006, 08:10 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Netaji's brother , Sarat Chandra Bose, tried to get West Bengal inside East Pakistan as a <b>united</b> muslim majority bengal
He was defeated by Shyama Prasad Mukerji who insisted on a partition
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
united being the key word here. that united bengal would become a muslim majority proivince wasnt his fault - its a legacy of bengal's history. ever since bengal fell in muslim hands it was muslim marority. but at least it was very prosperous, and had east and west bengal been one single muslim majority state (under the union of india ofcourse, not pakistan), then economically bengal as a whoile would have been a lot better off, no 71 war and refugee problem would have happened etc. ofcourse all this while (since 47) bengal would simultaneously have been another touchy state in so far as communal violence and hindu-muslim tentions are concerned, like a up or a hyderabad.
i support what S P Mukherjee did, tho the best thing would have been in between. in 1947 india should not have agreed to the border line between east and west bengal as drawn at the time of the partition of bangal (decades before the partition of india) by Curzon. we should have taken a lot more land and a lot less muslim people. indian bengal should ideqally have been the size of bangladesh.
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+May 6 2006, 08:10 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ May 6 2006, 08:10 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Netaji's niece is a notorious anti-hindu
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
can we have more info on this please?
To all those who come from Bengal:
What is the situation on the ground as far as hindus are concerned?
Are people aware of Islam and its atrocities?
Are they willing to organize and fight or do they delude themselves the RSS is going to come and save them? In my observation the middle castes and working class are still willing to fight but the upper caste and middle class will not.
I understand that commie leadership does not care but do rank and file commies understand their fate if muslims become a majority?
We cannot throw millions of hindus to the wolves again. Bengal needs to be saved at any cost because if hindus loose Bengal then between muslims of Bengal (east-west) and muslims of UP-Bihar hindu heartland will be finished.
united being the key word here. that united bengal would become a muslim majority proivince wasnt his fault - its a legacy of bengal's history. ever since bengal fell in muslim hands it was muslim marority. but at least it was very prosperous, and had east and west bengal been one single muslim majority state (under the union of india ofcourse, not pakistan),
----
United bengal was hindu majority in 1757
United bengal became muslim majority only in 1881, thanks to bengali hindus being too educated to breed adequately and the bad bengali habit of getting young hindu girls married off to old men, thereby creating a large pool of non-breeding young widows
A muslim majority state even under India would be no different from JK
with the hindus slowly being driven out
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->united being the key word here. that united bengal would become a muslim majority proivince wasnt his fault - its a legacy of bengal's history. ever since bengal fell in muslim hands it was muslim marority. but at least it was very prosperous, and had east and west bengal been one single muslim majority state (under the union of india ofcourse, not pakistan), then economically bengal as a whoile would have been a lot better off, no 71 war and refugee problem would have happened etc. ofcourse all this while (since 47) bengal would simultaneously have been another touchy state in so far as communal violence and hindu-muslim tentions are concerned, like a up or a hyderabad.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually he was not proposing it to be under India but a "sovereign United Bengal" with a Muslim majority. Here is some info:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The decision to partition the province Bengal was a personal victory for Syama Prasad Mookerjee who had been indefatigably campaigning for such partition. The treatment that the Hindus got in the hands of the Muslims in East Pakistan after partition amply demonstrated his foresight in doing so. Jinnah was aghast at the proposal for partition and said that it was âa sinister move actuated by spite and bitternessâ[1]. At one point Mountbatten asked Jinnah about his views on Suhrawardyâs idea of âsovereign, independent Bengalâ and Jinnah said in reply without hesitation, âI should be delighted. What is the use of Bengal without Calcutta? They had much better remain united and independent. I am sure they would be on friendly terms with us.â[2] Stanley Wolpert, author of âJinnah of Pakistanâ observes that Liaquat Ali also agreed with Jinnah on this question and remarked to Sir Eric Mieville[3], âthat he was in no way worried about Bengal because he was convinced in his own mind that the province would never divideâ[4]. Obviously the expectation was that Muslim-majority independent Bengal, with its great city of Calcutta, would eventually get rid of its Hindu minority and become a part, or at least a satellite, of Pakistan. It is this dream of theirs that was shattered by Syama Prasad. Some years later when Nehru has remarked to Syama Prasad that he and his party had consented to the partition of the country, he had retorted âYou partitioned India ; I partitioned Pakistanâ[5].
This âsovereign, independent Bengalâ was the brainchild of a few Hindu leaders of the Bengal Congress who had sided with those leaders of the League who were staunchly opposed to partition of the province. Among these Hindu leaders the foremost was Sarat Chandra Bose ; among the Muslim League leaders none other than Suhrawardy, together with Abul Hashim, said to be a âprogressiveâ among the Leaguers in Bengal. Sarat Bose by this time had left the Congress (something that he did not do even when his brother Subhas left the party to form his Forward Bloc) and launched a party called the âSocialist Republican Partyâ. These gentlemen, in all their wisdom, thought of a sovereign, independent Bengal, which of course would have a Muslim majority.
The plan for sovereign independent Bengal was hatched in April 1947. According to Abul Hashim it would be a state where Hindus and Muslims would have equal rights and equal opportunity to conduct themselves in accordance with their own beliefs. A committee for preparation of a draft declaration for the formation of such a state was constituted at the residence of Suhrawardy in a meeting attended by Nazimuddin, Fazlur Rahman, Kiran Sankar Ray, Nalini Ranjan Sarker, Satya Baksi and others. The drafting was really done by Sarat Chandra Bose, who conceived it as a âSocialist Republicâ. Mountbatten and Burrows both considered the scheme with interest, and it was at their instance that the term âSocialistâ was omitted from the draft. The draft was finalised and signed by Sarat Bose and Abul Hashim on May 20. According to this draft, the state would first be ruled by an interim government in which the Prime Minister would be Muslim and the Home Minister Hindu. Later there would be a Constituent Assembly with 16 Muslim and 14 Hindu members.
What aberration overtook these supposedly sagacious, politically experienced men like Sarat Bose and Kiran Sankar Ray to join forces with a man like Suhrawardy who, just eight months ago had unleashed such untold horror on the Hindus of Calcutta and Noakhali? With Kiran Sankar Ray it was quite possibly his yearning to retain his extensive Zamindari at Teota in the district of Dacca â he knew for sure that the Muslims would make short shrift of him and his Zamindari (as they actually did) once Muslim majority East Bengal came into being, while he might have a fighting chance in sovereign Bengal. As for Sarat Bose, it was even more inexplicable. He was a West Bengali, very firmly entrenched in Calcutta. Was it a desperate measure to regain political ground in the province that he had lost through erroneous political decisions and lack of foresight? With Suhrawardy it was clearly the fact that he too was a West Bengali, and would not stand much chance of getting as much prominence in East Bengal (the Premiership of East Bengal went to Nazimuddin) as he might possibly get in United Bengal. It was also said that he dearly loved the city of Calcutta. For all the wrong reasons, of course.
Be that as it may, and Providence be thanked, there was to be no Muslim-majority Sovereign Independent United Bengal. Hindu opinion was very firmly against it. The Amrita Bazar Patrika, a nationalist English daily of Calcutta, ran an opinion poll towards the end of April 1947, which revealed that as many as 98% of the Hindus wanted partition of the province. Had there been a Muslim-majority Sovereign United Bengal as planned by Bose and Hashim, the plight of all Bengali Hindus today would have been like the Sindhi Hindus, with no part of the country to call their own.
http://bengalvoice.com/uproot_chapter4.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now coming to his niece, she is Sharmila Bose, and she gained fame a few years ago by writing some paper about 1971 in which she claimed that there were very few rapes during 1971, the Paki press went crazy over this and devoted a lot of press time to this b*tch.
To S.Roy
Again I got banned today, from BRF by Calvin ( I think )
On a riot thread, I started posting hard data that about 80% of riots are muslim initiated
On a post where I had made citing hard data, Calvin nuked the post saying fixing blame is not Ok, and a few minutes later, I got removed from BRF
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+May 6 2006, 07:03 PM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ May 6 2006, 07:03 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->and the bad bengali habit of getting young hindu girls married off to old men, thereby creating a large pool of non-breeding young widows
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
since you know more than most posters here, about bengal (you are right about this "Bad habit"), you could do well to explore the reason why this phenomena took place. ypung unmarried girls were at a risk, everywhere in muslim infested india. ending up with an old man was better than ending up in a harem. young girls were married off to young men if possible and if not, some elderly man was settled for, in preference to waiting to find out if (not when) some local muslim zamindaar set his lusty eyes on her.
a very good read in this regard is the last chapter of Nirad C Choudhury's "east is east and the west is west". extremely informative.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+May 6 2006, 07:17 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ May 6 2006, 07:17 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->united being the key word here. that united bengal would become a muslim majority proivince wasnt his fault - its a legacy of bengal's history. ever since bengal fell in muslim hands it was muslim marority. but at least it was very prosperous, and had east and west bengal been one single muslim majority state (under the union of india ofcourse, not pakistan), then economically bengal as a whoile would have been a lot better off, no 71 war and refugee problem would have happened etc. ofcourse all this while (since 47) bengal would simultaneously have been another touchy state in so far as communal violence and hindu-muslim tentions are concerned, like a up or a hyderabad.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually he was not proposing it to be under India but a "sovereign United Bengal" with a Muslim majority. Here is some info:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The decision to partition the province Bengal was a personal victory for Syama Prasad Mookerjee who had been indefatigably campaigning for such partition. The treatment that the Hindus got in the hands of the Muslims in East Pakistan after partition amply demonstrated his foresight in doing so. Jinnah was aghast at the proposal for partition and said that it was âa sinister move actuated by spite and bitternessâ[1]. At one point Mountbatten asked Jinnah about his views on Suhrawardyâs idea of âsovereign, independent Bengalâ and Jinnah said in reply without hesitation, âI should be delighted. What is the use of Bengal without Calcutta? They had much better remain united and independent. I am sure they would be on friendly terms with us.â[2] Stanley Wolpert, author of âJinnah of Pakistanâ observes that Liaquat Ali also agreed with Jinnah on this question and remarked to Sir Eric Mieville[3], âthat he was in no way worried about Bengal because he was convinced in his own mind that the province would never divideâ[4]. Obviously the expectation was that Muslim-majority independent Bengal, with its great city of Calcutta, would eventually get rid of its Hindu minority and become a part, or at least a satellite, of Pakistan. It is this dream of theirs that was shattered by Syama Prasad. Some years later when Nehru has remarked to Syama Prasad that he and his party had consented to the partition of the country, he had retorted âYou partitioned India ; I partitioned Pakistanâ[5].
This âsovereign, independent Bengalâ was the brainchild of a few Hindu leaders of the Bengal Congress who had sided with those leaders of the League who were staunchly opposed to partition of the province. Among these Hindu leaders the foremost was Sarat Chandra Bose ; among the Muslim League leaders none other than Suhrawardy, together with Abul Hashim, said to be a âprogressiveâ among the Leaguers in Bengal. Sarat Bose by this time had left the Congress (something that he did not do even when his brother Subhas left the party to form his Forward Bloc) and launched a party called the âSocialist Republican Partyâ. These gentlemen, in all their wisdom, thought of a sovereign, independent Bengal, which of course would have a Muslim majority.
The plan for sovereign independent Bengal was hatched in April 1947. According to Abul Hashim it would be a state where Hindus and Muslims would have equal rights and equal opportunity to conduct themselves in accordance with their own beliefs. A committee for preparation of a draft declaration for the formation of such a state was constituted at the residence of Suhrawardy in a meeting attended by Nazimuddin, Fazlur Rahman, Kiran Sankar Ray, Nalini Ranjan Sarker, Satya Baksi and others. The drafting was really done by Sarat Chandra Bose, who conceived it as a âSocialist Republicâ. Mountbatten and Burrows both considered the scheme with interest, and it was at their instance that the term âSocialistâ was omitted from the draft. The draft was finalised and signed by Sarat Bose and Abul Hashim on May 20. According to this draft, the state would first be ruled by an interim government in which the Prime Minister would be Muslim and the Home Minister Hindu. Later there would be a Constituent Assembly with 16 Muslim and 14 Hindu members.
What aberration overtook these supposedly sagacious, politically experienced men like Sarat Bose and Kiran Sankar Ray to join forces with a man like Suhrawardy who, just eight months ago had unleashed such untold horror on the Hindus of Calcutta and Noakhali? With Kiran Sankar Ray it was quite possibly his yearning to retain his extensive Zamindari at Teota in the district of Dacca â he knew for sure that the Muslims would make short shrift of him and his Zamindari (as they actually did) once Muslim majority East Bengal came into being, while he might have a fighting chance in sovereign Bengal. As for Sarat Bose, it was even more inexplicable. He was a West Bengali, very firmly entrenched in Calcutta. Was it a desperate measure to regain political ground in the province that he had lost through erroneous political decisions and lack of foresight? With Suhrawardy it was clearly the fact that he too was a West Bengali, and would not stand much chance of getting as much prominence in East Bengal (the Premiership of East Bengal went to Nazimuddin) as he might possibly get in United Bengal. It was also said that he dearly loved the city of Calcutta. For all the wrong reasons, of course.
Be that as it may, and Providence be thanked, there was to be no Muslim-majority Sovereign Independent United Bengal. Hindu opinion was very firmly against it. The Amrita Bazar Patrika, a nationalist English daily of Calcutta, ran an opinion poll towards the end of April 1947, which revealed that as many as 98% of the Hindus wanted partition of the province. Had there been a Muslim-majority Sovereign United Bengal as planned by Bose and Hashim, the plight of all Bengali Hindus today would have been like the Sindhi Hindus, with no part of the country to call their own.
http://bengalvoice.com/uproot_chapter4.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now coming to his niece, she is Sharmila Bose, and she gained fame a few years ago by writing some paper about 1971 in which she claimed that there were very few rapes during 1971, the Paki press went crazy over this and devoted a lot of press time to this b*tch.
[right][snapback]50745[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this one ppost made my respect for S.P mukherjee's foresight go up 10 fold and come down 10 fold for sarat bose. Netaji, no less correct in his vision than S.P.Mukherjee, seems to have had all the wroing kinds of relatives.
Folks, please stick to topic of the thread. We really don't care of ethinicity or race or religious affiliations of other forum members let alone that of some other forum. Take it off line please.
you could do well to explore the reason why this phenomena took place. ypung unmarried girls were at a risk, everywhere in muslim infested india. ending up with an old man was better than ending up in a harem. young girls were married off to young men if possible and if not, some elderly man was settled for, in preference to waiting to find out if (not when) some local muslim zamindaar set his lusty eyes on her.
---
Post 1775, most zamindars in Bengal were hindus and most of them kept muslim concubines and produced muslim offspring, whereas in the same hindu zamindars house, there were plenty of unremarried young widows
Bengalis had the kulin system wherein hundreds of young girls were married off to a kulin
Even now in Varanasi, most of the hindu widows are bengalis
Bengali culture to a much greater extent than other hindu subcultures
created a large pool of non-breeding young widows and this helped muslims make bengal into a muslim majority province by 1881
While many hindu regions had the bad habit of non-remarrying their widows
bengal was unique in having a large portion of women married to old dying men, instantly creating a huge pool of non-breeding widows
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+May 7 2006, 12:27 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ May 7 2006, 12:27 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->you could do well to explore the reason why this phenomena took place. ypung unmarried girls were at a risk, everywhere in muslim infested india. ending up with an old man was better than ending up in a harem. young girls were married off to young men if possible and if not, some elderly man was settled for, in preference to waiting to find out if (not when) some local muslim zamindaar set his lusty eyes on her.
---
Post 1775, most zamindars in Bengal were hindus and most of them kept muslim concubines and produced muslim offspring, whereas in the same hindu zamindars house, there were plenty of unremarried young widows
Bengalis had the kulin system wherein hundreds of young girls were married off to a kulin
Even now in Varanasi, most of the hindu widows are bengalis
Bengali culture to a much greater extent than other hindu subcultures
created a large pool of non-breeding young widows and this helped muslims make bengal into a muslim majority province by 1881
While many hindu regions had the bad habit of non-remarrying their widows
bengal was unique in having a large portion of women married to old dying men, instantly creating a huge pool of non-breeding widows
[right][snapback]50759[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i'll talk to you on this AFTER you have read the said book (or at least the last chapter thereof)
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+May 6 2006, 07:57 PM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ May 6 2006, 07:57 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->To S.Roy
Again I got banned today, from BRF by Calvin ( I think )
On a riot thread, I started posting hard data that about 80% of riots are muslim initiated
On a post where I had made citing hard data, Calvin nuked the post saying fixing blame is not Ok, and a few minutes later, I got removed from BRF
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tough luck bro <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->. Actually there was a thread started by me "Islam, Bangladesh and terrorism in India" on BRF specifically for this purpose. BRF has got wider readership and most members cross post stuff between the two forums.
Anyway, the census data is invaluable.
Coming two Netaji and INA's composition. It must be noted that the Punjabi Muslims made up the bulk of British Indian Army. So there should be no surprise if INA has Muslim predominance (along with Sikhs...again due to greater representation of Punjab in British Indian Army).
Netaji's secularist/socialist leanings are well known. Not undermining his achievements I believe being out of INC shadows he could have played the Hindu card and that could of caused exodus of Hindus out of INC fold.
We must remember there was no Hindu leader with pan-Indian appeal outside INC except Netaji.
This his only failings i.e. lack of grasp of our civilizational history.
Credit must first go to Kaiser, he killed 3 million british soldiers in WW1
Hitler then bankrupted the UK and also killed 1 mil in WW2
It was moral and logical to get help of kaiser who was no more than a german nationalist during ww1 and at that time both Aurobindo and Savarkar were anti-british
In ww2, it was necessary to support british since they were a lesser evil and also to dilute the muslim % in the army
Netaji was simply a more brave version of Nehru - muslim appeaser and leftist
BTW, the Russian economy under the Tsar was booming
The bolsheviks set back the Russian economy by 20 years
05-11-2006, 05:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-11-2006, 06:05 PM by Husky.)
Sorry if I am interrupting the conversation. But no one has bothered to adequately check a walking disaster and so I will.
To Ben of post 195:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1) in which language were the vedas, upanishads and all hindu mantras written?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The Vedas and Upanishads and older mantras in Sanskrit. Later others in Prakrit and Pali. Others in Tamil (yes, we have mantras in Tamil) and Kannadam, etc.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->2) in which language were the ramayan and mahabharat written?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The original versions of the Ramayan<i>a</i> and Mahabharat<i>a</i> are in Sanskrit, because the people of these epics spoke Sanskrit (not in Hindi). However, there are local South Indian language versions of Ramayana too.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->3) in which language were treatises on astronomy, astrology, ayurveda, yoga, salbha sutras etc written?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Extensions to the Ayurveda are also in Tamil and other South Indian languages. It was not stagnant, but continued to be added to. Where were the Ayurveda manuscripts preserved? In the South. By whom? Indians - South Indians. <i>Hindus</i> - of the South. The first treatiseson the topics you suggest might have been written partly in the North, but it was a pan-Hindu effort. And additions to the treatises you speak of continued to be made and discovered all over the Hindu subcontinent.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->5) druids, alans, lithwanians, hitties, mittanis, persians, and other vedic peoplle have a similarity in language, literature and religion with whom??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The only <i>Vedic</i> people are the Vedic Hindus. Those who know of the Vedas, or accepted it as part of their corpus, were Vedic Hindus. The Persians were Avestan. The Druids, Alans and Lithuanians were never in India when the Vedas were compiled. They are not Vedic people. Vedic means related to the Vedas. Except for Hindus, no one else you mentioned are related to the Vedas. Just because today some Europeans are trying to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European language and are interested in a Proto-Indo-European religion which supposedly existed (in Central Asia from where the White people they think were called Aryans came) doesn't make the claimants such. They imagine their European ancestors practised the PIE religion in Central Asia, that gave rise to the Indian and old Iranian religion. Some imagine their ancestors wrote the Vedas. They like to call themselves Vedics, Vedicists and other English nonsense terms (like Aryan). Central Asia isn't where the Vedas were written.
Hittites were not, but adopted a kind of Sanskrit-like language probably from the Mitannis. The Mittanis might have been Vedic. But we can't expect people from Bengal or Tamil Nadu to travel all over India, through Persia into Anatolia, now can we? No, it's more likely that the people settled in the Punjab did that.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->6) who always called themselves arya??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Only the Indians (Hindus, Jains who both use the term Acharya and Buddhists) and Persians (Zoroastrians). None of the others you listed in 5.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->7) the arya in iran - the children of parasu - used to call which people as hindus??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The Airya in Iran were not children of Parasu. They were of the Parshu tribe. They called the people settled near the Sindhu that they came in contact with as Hindus. That includes the ancestors of present day Pakistanis, Afghans and Punjabi, possible UP, Kashmiri,... It also included the ancestors of Jains who were not Vedic (in the sense of taking the Vedas as central). If the Persians met people beyond these regions, realising they practised the same religion they would have dubbed them Hindus also. Even if it was only to not bother inventing a new name, though the region was different, the religion was the same.
The Greeks and Romans callled all of the Indian subcontinent "India" - also based on the river Indus. So if the river is to determine what our religious beliefs and nationality are called then count the opinion of all the ancients.
05-11-2006, 05:52 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-11-2006, 07:16 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->8) just how were austro asiatic peoples described in ramayan and mahabharat?? (answer = vanaras, meaning not monkeys, but any living being that lives in forests)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Obviously someone who's never read the Ramayana. The Vanara were met as Rama travelled south. Since when do the Indians you call <i>Austro Asiatic</i> or <i>Dravidian</i> have tails and other features as described in the Ramayana? The Vanara were a kind of monkey as described in Ramayana and as confirmed by the Mahabharata (Hanuman's reappearance). Vali had a tail with which he carried the frightened Ravana around. Hanuman turned his tail into a seat at Ravana's court. Stop talking about things you don't know.
And, except for the AIT people and the Pakistani pan-Islamist groups operating under titles like Dalitstan, no knowledgeable and sane Hindu says that the Vanara were not monkeys but were instead the Dravidians/Austro Asiatics/all-except-your-close-circle.
Maybe you think that Vyasa and Valmiki didn't know they meant 'Austro Asiatic' not tail and confused the two. Then again, maybe you're just wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->9) from which script do all indian scripts come from??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Brahmi???? The west says that Brahmi was developed in the Middle-East somewhere. The South Indian Dravidianist groups say that it was a South Indian invention. What's the point of (9) unless you want someone to tell you current theories (however right or wrong) don't support you?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->10) who exactly are the namboodhris and when did malayalam come into existance as a language seperate from tamil??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The Namboothiris are Brahmanas. According to all except 1 or 2 maths, Sri Shankaracharya was born in the 4th or 5th century <i>bc</i>. That is the period he lived in according to tradition. However, one Namboothiripad, a <i>communist</i>, claims that according to his research (conducted in the usual 'scholarly' communist manner with the usual communist honesty) that Namboothiris came to South India in the 5th, no 6th, no 7th, no now it's 8th century ad. One or two South Indian maths accepted the 5th century date that the AIT-English gave for Sri Shankaracharya.
Malayalam is a Sanskritised version of an old South Indian language that had already been separate from Tamil for a long time. Malayalam is not a version of Tamil, no more than Urdu being a version of Bengali.
The brahmins of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka (including the Tulu/Bunt brahmins), Andhra are local brahmanas. They are not Gowda Saraswats who came from the north in recent times (no offense to them either, just clarifying). The Namboothiris are thought to have come from the North too, but when it is not known. Obviously, it was much earlier than Sri Shankaracharya. On the other hand, many of the Namboothiris today might have just been the locals too - trained as brahmanas by those who came to teach from the North.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->11) avestan language and religion are cognate with which language and which religious treatise ??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Avestan is a later version of ancient Iranian. Ancient Iranian and Vedic Sanskrit are related. Which proves nothing. Tamil and Kannada are thought to be related. So? Did you invent Sanskrit? You didn't. What a surprise. Don't take credit for something you had no involvement in. At least my father speaks Sanskrit, paternal grandfather's mother wrote letters in Sanskrit. My uncle on the paternal side's mother was a Hindu Scholar who debated philosophy in Sanskrit and won against male Brahmanas, and Jainas (not in Sanskrit). They are also all of them excellent in Tamil on my maternal side and Kannada on my paternal side. My grandfather taught Kannada, Sanskrit, Maths and Science to <i>all</i> the village children. No varna-based discrimination. These children were all, without exception, good at learning. That includes their accomplishments in Sanskrit: essay writing, poetry, prose.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->12) according to the purans, which area was called as aryavarta??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The Puranas only mention it at the time the regions N of the Vindhya were called Aryavarta. Eventually, Aryavarta would included the rest of India. Krunvanto Visham Aryam. By the time the Chinese visited India, and Buddhist monks from South India travelled to China, the Chinese referred to South India as being part of Aryavarta and Bharatavarsha too. Geez.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->13) finally can we have some examples of tamil luminaries who are NOT brahmin (swamynathan, cv raman, ramanujam, radha krishnan, etc - all i know of ARE brahmins)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Too many to list, but you'll be wondering who's that? Since communist, British and missionaries made sure no one in India would know the contribution of South Indians to Hinduism. The Agamas are in Tamil and are ancient, they are as Hindu as other sacred Hindu writings. Narayana Guru in South India made great contributions to Hinduism in recent times. These you must know of.
To which temples in India are the Gods still <i>seen</i> visiting by the locals, villagers or otherwise? Uma and Maheshwaran, Lakshmi and Vishnu, Kartikeya, Indran, Suryan and all the others, South India is full of them.
Even the most 'simple' villager knows how to do Surya Namaskaram. Do you? Without having to look it up online. They know how to ask the Gods to make it rain in the villages. Do you? Do you see the Hindu Gods? Or are you only getting the silent treatment of Yahweh (who cannot be seen or heard or felt in this world) in your Brahmo-Samaji-Hare-Krishna reforms?
Shiva and Uma, Vishnu and Lakshmi, the Devargal are not <i>Dravidian</i> or <i>Vedic Aryan</i> inventions. They are pan-Indian subcontinent Gods. These are the Gods of all the people down to Sri Lanka. Bengal is still Shaktic isn't it? It was historically. Kashmir was Shaivaite and Shaktic. Afghanistan was very Shaivaite.
Where are the Devargal still worshipped? Indra, Agni, Vayu, Varuna, Surya? The Navagrahas? Where do we still know how to pronounce Sanskrit properly and not turn it into Hindi ('Mahabharat, Ramayan, Arjun, Bhim, Ram')? Where are horses and dogs still given names like Arya? Where do people still give names of Gods and Goddesses to their children? Where do the villagers still tell the Ramayanam, Mahabharatam to their children? Where do the brahmanas still pronounce the Vedic rites properly and invoke the Gods? Where do the 'simplest' villagers know that their ancestors were Hindu since the beginning of India, in spite of villains hitting us over the head for centuries with the AIT/Christian/Dravidian-NorthIndian/Islamist theories? [Answer: South India. Possibly other parts of India, too - including the North]
You are free to call a spade a spade. But please, stick to your day-job of identifying spades.
By the way, Pakistan's ISI called. They've fired all their ignorant pseudo-scholars. They want to hire you, because you're doing a better job than of all them. Though as ill-informed as those they sacked, they think you're more useful, being a Hindu.
No offense to other Hindus, Jains, etc. from North India. The only differences I see are regional.
|
