Intrafaith Dialog - Hinduism, Buddhism And Jainism

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 10-29-2006, 11:02 AM by Bodhi.)

This is a very sensitive yet important topic for Hindu soceity, as to the interrelationship of Jain, Bauddha, Sikh and other religions with traditional Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma.

We can not deny the fact that in context of India, many Sikhs, Jains, Bauddha would go lengths to say that they are not Hindus and so on. Also we can not deny the fact that if you visit the websites or internet forums of Sikhs, Jains, Indian Bauddha, you may find bitter Hindu bashing by some members. You would be surprised to note that these fourm members (few) would be not so much bitter against Christo-Islamists as much as againsts Hindus.

HOWEVER, I think, it is important to analyze why they are reacting this way, rather than reciprocating the same thing to them.

First of all, we must avoid generalizing that they are anti-Hinduism or something like that. I have had plenty of Sikh and Jain friends and I find them all very respectful to Hinduism.

Majority Jains are as strong Hindutva-supporters as one can be. In North India (UP, MP, Rajasthan etc), Jain businesses are traditional financial supporters to Hindutva activities.

Likewise majority Sikhs on the ground level in India are for unity with Hindus and not otherwise. I very clearly remember the days of Ram Janmabhumi Andolan (1990-93). I used to be a student living in UP. Sikhs were solidly with Hindus during entire episode. I remember the speech of a local leader Sardar Kashmir Singhji, where he started by saying, "Ham Hinduon ki Yaddashta badi kamjor hoti hai" (We hindus have a short memory)...and so on. Master Tara Singh the famous Sikh leader was the founding member of VHP. Even today, doesn't Akali Dal-BJP alliance, politically represents that unity for last couple of decades?

So what is the source of friction between Hindus and these religions, and when did it start?

'When' is easier to understand. In history, you have no evidence of any persecution of Sikhs/Jains/Bauddha in India at the hands of Hindus. Likewise, no enimity towards Hindus at the hands of Sikhs/Jains. Most of the hinstoric Jains have been Kshatriyas - warriors and kings (like king Bindusar). Many jains have been traders and businessmen. But I am not aware of any anti-Hindu feeling amongst Jains in the history. Likewise, the history of Sikhs has been full of persecution by Muslims, but totally devoid of any source of animosity between Hindus and Sikhs. In history, Sikhs have fought bravely shoulder-to-shoulder with Marathas and other Hindu warriers not only against Mughals, but also against Afghans. There were many Sikh soldiers in the Great Maratha army that took on Abdali. Just read Guru Govind Singhji's words in Dasham Granth, and you would realize how highly he thought of Hindus. He had even tried to free up Ram Janma Bhumi in Ayodhya from Mughals. Maharaja Ranjit Singh used to worship Ma Bhawani, perform Havans and was commited to Cow and Brahmin protection. (like Guru Govind Singh Ji)

So when did the friction amongst Hindus/Sikhs/Jains, and even within Hindus south/north/shaiva/vaishnav and so on start?

In a different context, VS Naipaul throws some light on this in his novel Magic Seeds. He writes that the division amongst Hindus was effectivy promoted from 1870s onwards by British imperialist designs. Having won the larger frontiers using the army full of Hindus themselves, and having quelled the 1857, British had now identified the effective tool of divide-and-rule. And they had by now built up the superstructure of operationalizing this divide and rule - 1) Aryan-Invasion 2) Martial races and Survile races 3) Casteism, Caste Scheduling, Caste based sensus 4) Macaulian Education 5) European-written Indian history 6) Developing/ encouraging sub-national identities - Bengali nationalism, Dravid nationalism, Marathi nationalism, Muslim nationalism.

So that is how it started. And results can be seen by early 1900s. Up until early 1900s, it was not uncommon for Gurdwaras to display the pictures of Hindu Deities too. Ram Rai, Krishna Singh, Buddh Singh are/were common names of Sikhs. In a Hindu family of Panjab, typically one son used to be Sikh, all other brothers used to remain Hindus.

But with early 1900 some Sikh voices were heard for the first time asserting an 'independant' identity different from other Hindus. Bhai Kanh Singh's was probably that first voice. From then on, it gained grounds. It also got support from Sikhs living abroad.

And as we know, spreading hate is easier than love. Animosity is a better glue than affection. First British, then Nehruvian Secularists, then communists gave all support to this artificial hatred. Recently Bipin Chandra , chela of Romila Thapar, has attempted his best to rewrite Sikh history with this new light. He has tried to prove that Guru Teg Bahadur Ji was not persecuted by Aurangzeb, but by the efforts of a Hindu courtier of his - named ram Rai. Reason, personal enimity with Guru because he had refused a matrimonial offer for his son!

Sikhs were almost the first Indian immigrants to US, Canada, Europe. Up until 1960s and 70s - and it will be difficult for us to imagine that today - it was really not a matter of pride for a Hindu to call himself Hindu. It was a matter of difficulty and almost embarrasment - thanks to the secularist-communist-missionary propoganda machine. (Do you remember the famous slogan of VHP throughout the 80s in India -"Garv Se Kaho Ham Hindu Hain - Say with Pride, We Are Hindu".) Under thick anti-Hindu propoganda widespread in west those days, Sikhs living abraod must have found it easier to dissociate themselves from Hinduism. They must have found it easier to portray Sikhism in Abrahamic lines rather than defending Hindu roots. Do you notice how western Sikhs present Sikhism in total Abrahamic norms these days! Guru Nanak is not a Great Sant Guru but a prophet!! Sri Guru Granth is a 'revealed' book much like bible/Koran! Unlike poly-theist Hindus, Sikhism is mono-theist! and so on. And rest is the momentum of inertia plus active politics from 1900 onwards. (This is my personal interpretation - and I may be wrong)

Likewise Indian Bauddhs. Since Indain Buddhism has become a vehicle of Dalit politics, Hindu-Bauddha harmony has been at risk.

So, what should Hindus do?

Difficult question. But it is easier to answere what we should NOT do. We must not react to Sikhs/Jains in the same way as some of them attack Hinduism. We must understand the situation, and act very carefully. We got to bring back the samarasata between all these faiths. Sikhs, Jains, Bauddha are not like muslims and Christos. They have always been and are our own brothers - even if many of them dont realize that today.

One way is to look at how our great Acharyas have behaved. Two examples - Swami Dayanand Saraswati, and Swami Vivekananda. Swami Dayananda traveled extensively in Panjab. In fact Panjab was one of the strong holds of Arya Samaj since inception. He mercilessly attacked Christianism and Islamism with all his might, and with what Oj! But did he even so much as raise a finger at Sikhs, Jains, Bauddhas? Never. Whenever he referred to these faiths, he did so with respect. If he did not agree to something, he ignored. He treated them sometimes with more respect than he did Hindu orthodoxy! Likewise Swami Vivekananda. He always talked about these faiths with respect, and as if these were his own.

What do we do then? Definitely not ignore or forget, certainly not attack back. Something, which will really start the inter-faith dialog amongst all these faiths... else we shall be playing into the designs of macaulian secularist-leftist-missionaries.

By the way, in Atlanta various Hindu temples and organizations have come together under the banner of VHP, to celebrate November 5, 2006 as HINDU UNITY DAY (Link). The day happens to be Kartik Purnima - the Birth Day of Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji. The event is supported by Sikh American Society of Georgia, and Jain Samaj of Greater Atlanta, apart from various other organizations. ( LINK )

10-29-2006, 11:08 AM

Bodhiji

Great post !!

My experience from Gujarat/UP/MP is the same. I dont know any buddhists myself but I can ascertain for Jains/Sikhs. No way are Jains anti-hindus - a freak or two dont count. A Jain lady once told me to be sympathetic about a freak --> have pity on him, he has been born in an un-arya land, he will eventually grow up.. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rocker.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rocker.gif' />

Same goes with Sikhs, you wont find any shortage of Sardars in a BajrangBali temple I visit back home.. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rock.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rock.gif' />

A book review was posted on IF some time ago .. Havent been able to find the book.

QUOTETitle: Philosophy of Shri Guru Granth Sahibji
Author: Malhar Krishna Gokhale

Publication: 'Vivek' weekly (Marathi) - Free translation

Date: October 17, 2004

Review of a Book with the same title
Author: Dr Arvind Godbole
Distributor: Sahitya Sindhu Publication, Bangalore
Pages: 160
Price: Rs.100

Guru Nanak is called the original founder and first Guru of Sikh sect. His period is 1469 to 1539 A.D. ADIGRANTH is considered to be their sacred religious book. It is also considered to their Guru. Tenth Guru Gobindsinha declared before his death i.e. 1708 that there would not be any Guru after him. His followers should consider Adigranth as their Guru. Hence thereafter, Adigranth was called "Adi Shri Gurugranthsahibji". What does it exactly contain? Mainly Gurugranth is a collection of a number of songs by various sages and saints from North India, Shlokas (stanzas?) and Savaya (a kind of poetic rendition). Sadhubhasha or Sadhukkadi is a mixture of many dialects in vogue in North India. During the time of 5th Guru, Arjundeo for the first time, the Gurugranth was neatly edited in 1603-04 and at that time, it was written in Gurumukhi script.

Gurugranth is written on 1430 large pages. The songs of various saints are not in regular groups. Overall, the structure of the book is not for reading but singing it aloud or singing in Raagas. Hence the order of the songs is based on Choupadi, Ashtapadi, Chanta etc. according to the Raagas or meters. This collection of songs is woven in different 31 Raagas.

This is about the outer structure of the Gurugranth. What does it contain inside? What is narrated through the songs of various sages? Have Guru Nanak or the following Gurus stated some different thoughts?

Dr Arvind Godbole, the author the book Philosophy of Shri Guru Granth Sahibji,has taken the pen in hand to have an insight on it. His earlier book "Guru Nanak to Guru Gobindsinha" which had traced the history of 'Guru Tradition (Parampara)' was praised even by Sikh readers and critics. Recently, an improved edition of this book has been published. British went on conquering small and large powers in India one by one and in the end swallowed the entire country. The last state they conquered was that of Khalsa State Raja Ranjitsinha i.e Sikh State. This took place in about 1847 A.D.

Hence, the Sikhs remained aloof from the wildfire of 1857 Independence War between Hindus and Muslims against British. Because, their experience of British rule and slavery was of only 10 years. Just as British systematically effected a divide between Muslims and Hindus, in the same way they started to separate Sikhs from Hindus. The Sikhs in English army were being told on the basis of some lines in Gurugranth that to remain loyal with British Government was their religious duty.

This was the beginning. British writers started writing that Guru Nanak has propounded some philosophy different from Vedic or traditional Hindu religion. His thoughts are influenced by pre-Aryan Indian Philosophy, Jain thinking, Bouddha thinking, Judaism, Christianity, Sufi sect etc. He tried to achieve a religious harmony among Hindus and Muslims. On the whole, Sikh is not a sect in the Hindu traditions or community but it is a separate religion. British carried out the Census of India 1911. In it, they unhesitatingly registered Sikh as separate religion. Then this divisive religious politics went on worsening. After freedom, this should have been corrected. But the new people in power did not know anything about National identity and hence this divisive politics went on worsening further.

Some Malcolm says, Nanak endeavoured to create religious harmony among Hindus and Muslims. Some Harbansingh says, Nanak's efforts were to find out an alternative to Hindu and Muslim religions. Some Kohli says, Nanak's philosophy was influenced by Bouddha thoughts; what is the truth in all these writings?

After a deep study of Gurugranth for answers to these issues, the writer found that there is no influence of philosophy of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sufi Sect, Jain Bouddha etc. whatsoever on the thoughts of Guru Nanak. On the contrary, Guru Nanak has based his philosophy on Vedas, Upnishadas, Ramayan, Bhagvadgita and Naradbhaktisutra. It is not true that Sikh thinking believes not only Nirgunopasana (worship without Idols i.e. God without a Guna -shape), but Sagunopasana (worship of Idols is God with shape) is also acceptable to it.
Basically, Nanak has nowhere said that he was starting a separate sect or community. On the contrary, all his thoughts are just like the Devotion Sect (Bhaktipanth) in vogue everywhere in the contemporary India. Nanak was contemporary of Mogul Emperor Babar and hence the descriptions made by Guru
Nanak of the calamity, which had befallen on Hindus, and how Hindus had become
weak and lost inherent strength and similar descriptions of conditi! on of Hindu society made by Saint Ramdas are very similar.

The writer has given an exact table of the words, which are written in the Gurugranth while addressing God. According to it, Hari has occurred in highest number of places, i.e. 8344, Ram occurs in 3533. Other words like Prabhu, Gopal,
Govind, Parabrahma, Thakur, Karta, Data, Parmeshwar, Murari, Narayan, Antaryami, Jagdish, Satnaam, Mohan have also occurred. Non-Hindu word 'Allah' has occurred at 46 times. There are some Shlokas addressed to Muslims warning strongly about what is the true Masjid, what is the true Namaaz, true Kaaba and true Roza by Guru Nanak himself. Kabir was a devotee of Ram. Hence Muslims do not consider him as theirs. But Baba Fareed was a Sufi. In his songs included in Gurugranth contains no Islamic Philosophy but it deals with the extremely difficult
position of human being during old age. In short, Sikhism is not not only a separate religion but it is not a separate community also. At least it was not at the time of Nanak. Guru Nanak was an outstanding saint in the tradition in vogue in India in his times and even afterwards. This is the conclusion presented by the author before the readers with exact evidence from Gurugranth. Congratulations to the author for producing an extremely important reference book.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 10-29-2006, 11:47 AM by Husky.)

Post 93:QUOTEBut it is easier to answere what we should NOT do. We must not react to Sikhs/Jains in the same way as some of them attack Hinduism. We must understand the situation, and act very carefully. We got to bring back the samarasata between all these faiths. Sikhs, Jains, Bauddha are not like muslims and Christos.QUOTEWhat do we do then? Definitely not ignore or forget, certainly not attack back. Something, which will really start the inter-faith dialog amongst all these faiths... else we shall be playing into the designs of macaulian secularist-leftist-missionaries.Completely agree with this. There are separatists (Khalistanis), modern 'Buddhist' movements in India, p-secs, communists, and missionary-incited troublemakers who would like nothing better than that Hindus take these few voices of dissent (and yes, the voices are few, though the internet has the power to multiply these baiters to the point where they seem the majority) and assume they speak for all Jains,...

The worst thing we could do is to end all acceptance from our side based on these vocal yet non-representative whiners.
Therefore, even if we need not focus on their communities as such, we must leave ourselves open to them so that they know they will always be accepted either as respected co-religions or as part of the Hindu fold (however it is they identify themselves).

As Bodhi observed, if we break things off from our end and reciprocate in similar fashion, we will most definitely only be serving the objectives of the separatist forces.

QUOTEA Jain lady once told me to be sympathetic about a freak --> have pity on him, he has been born in an un-arya land, he will eventually grow up.. Nice.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 10-29-2006, 12:01 PM by Husky.)

This post is about the history of Christianity under the Portuguese in India - don't know if this is the appropriate thread.
Was searching for a paper mentioned on some site that I had noted down. It led me to Goan forums. Some self-critical Christians posted about useful books on Christo destruction of Hindu temples and the building of churches there. Among them:
QUOTEThere is a book written by Rui Gomes Pereira titled 'Hindu temples and Deities' which was originally written in Portuguese and later on translated into English by Antonio Victor Couto. The first edition was published in 1978. The efforts of the author really needs to be lauded for the wonderful collection of information that he has managed to pack into this book right from the establishment of villages , the Kulls, the mazanias, and the Communidade. In short how the systematic growth of settlements and villages and along with them their gods and goddesses which were not a few in number. He gives the names of all the gods and goddesses and the many temples alongwith their locations and one realizes unmistakably that many of them today are the sites of churches and chapels.Same spots.Another person suggested 'Window on Goa' by Maurice Hall
Meanwhile, more believing Christians advised that forum members better stop writing about such things (because it might give cause to us hindoos to get upset or something).

10-29-2006, 06:29 PM

QUOTEHOWEVER, I think, it is important to analyze why they are reacting this way, rather than reciprocating the same thing to them.

First of all, we must avoid generalizing that they are anti-Hinduism or something like that.

One can extend this argument to Muslims and Christians, and say they aren't really anti-hindu. And we mustn't react like they do. We must forgive muslims and christians, and try to understand why they're doing this, analyze the whole thing, perhaps have a dialogue. Riiiight!

QUOTEI have had plenty of Sikh and Jain friends and I find them all very respectful to Hinduism. 

Oh, not this "I have many sikh friends" argument again! <!--emo& Tongue

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /> I have plenty of Muslims who love hinduism, so what? Evidently, no man in his right mind will openly admit he hates you and your religion. So please don't be hasty and conclude that because you have half of dozen sikh friends.....

QUOTEdivision amongst Hindus was effectivy promoted from 1870s onwards by British imperialist designs.

You don't make a clay pot from nothing. You make a clay pot from clay, which means you can only create out of what you've already got. Likewise, Brits or whoever simply created sikh/jain/buddhist hatred out of already (existing) hatred amongst these groups. It's not as if these people were pure and without hatred, and the brits magically transformed them into savages.

QUOTEAnd as we know, spreading hate is easier than love. Animosity is a better glue than affection. First British, then Nehruvian Secularists, then communists gave all support to this artificial hatred.

Excuses, you make it sound as if sikhs are naive babies and without nehruvian secs, commies and brits, they would've been angels. Can you at least accept the possibilty that they too can hate Hindus, as do christians and muslims? Why this justification? And the same people get angry if someone justifies muslim atrocities in like manner.

QUOTEDifficult question. But it is easier to answere what we should NOT do. We must not react to Sikhs/Jains in the same way as some of them attack Hinduism. We must understand the situation, and act very carefully.

the same goes for christians and muslims. We shouldn't attack them, we must understand the situation and act very carefully. Let muslims and christians attack us, we must not attack them. After all, some of us believe that even if jains/sikhs attack us, we should try to understand the situation.

QUOTEBut did he even so much as raise a finger at Sikhs, Jains, Bauddhas? Never. Whenever he referred to these faiths, he did so with respect. If he did not agree to something, he ignored. He treated them sometimes with more respect than he did Hindu orthodoxy!

Which doesn't impressed me in the least. Sorry. If you find A and B mistaken, you attack A mercilessly but you choose to ignore B. This is quite abnormal.

QUOTEWhat do we do then? Definitely not ignore or forget, certainly not attack back. Something, which will really start the inter-faith dialog amongst all these faiths... 

Why reach out to people who don't even respect you? You might as well reach out to christians and muslims.

QUOTEBy the way, in Atlanta various Hindu temples and organizations have come together under the banner of VHP, to celebrate November 5, 2006 as HINDU UNITY DAY (Link). The day happens to be Kartik Purnima - the Birth Day of Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji.

Shows how deep hindu inferiority goes, choosing a sikh's birthday for this, rather than a Hindu saint's. And please don't argue it's out of respect for all religions etc. etc. Respecting others is one thing (and a good thing), but sucking up is another.

But will Hindus ever learn? I don't think so. Just as some sections of hindus defend christians and muslims no matter what they do, there are others in our community who will defend 'our own sects' no matter what they do. The former is secular and the latter nationalist. What they have in common is that they both lack self-respect, which is why they suck up to minorities.

10-29-2006, 06:35 PM

QUOTEbut I can ascertain for Jains/Sikhs. No way are Jains anti-hindus - a freak or two dont count.

I take it you know millions of Jains/Sikhs, and that's how you've come to this conclusion. If not, your opinion has no value.

QUOTESame goes with Sikhs, you wont find any shortage of Sardars in a BajrangBali temple I visit back home.. 

And if you find no shortage of muslims in your temple, would you also respec them, as you do sikhs? Bottom line, drawing conclusions from 'temple visits' is hardly logical.

Bharatvarsh · 10-29-2006, 06:45 PM

QUOTEHe mercilessly attacked Christianism and Islamism with all his might, and with what Oj! But did he even so much as raise a finger at Sikhs, Jains, Bauddhas? 
I think you have been misled, Swami Dayananda attacked all the other 3 as strongly as he did Christianity and Islam, infact the Arya Samaj attempts to reconvert Sikhs and their attacks on the Sikh gurus were one of the prime reasons for the schism between them and us.

Here is some info:
QUOTEThe attitude of cringing Hindu gratitude to the âsword-armâ is not the only nor even the most important reason for the contempt which some Khalsa Sikhs developed toward everything Hindu during the past century. The British policy of privileging the Sikhs is probably the decisive factor, but we should not ignore the role which Hindus themselves have played in the estrangement of the Sikhs with their own type of contempt.

The Arya Samaj, as a genuinely fundamentalist movement, distinguished between âauthenticâ (Vedic) Hinduism and âdegenerateâ (defined as post-Vedic) forms of Hinduism.Â By campaigning for the Shuddhi (âpurificationâ, effectively conversion) of Sikhs, it implicitly declared the Sikhs to be either degenerate Hindus or non-Hindus.57 Khushwant Singh describes the adverse effect of the Arya Samajâs campaign: âFortunately for the Sikhs, Dayanand Saraswati was also very offensive in the language he used.Â He did not realize that he was treading on soft ground when he described guru Nanak as a dambi, an impostor.58 (â¦) The Sikhs rejected Dayanand and the Samaj, and set up Singh Sabhas and the chief Khalsa Diwan to counteract Dayanandâs movement.Â Kahan Singh of Nabha published a book entitled âHam Hindu nahin hainâ59 It was a categorical statement of rejection of Hinduism.Â The Arya Samaj can take the credit for driving Sikhs away from Hinduism.â60

In the Arya Samaj version, Sikh pro-British âtoadyismâ versus Arya nationalism was a more decisive factor in their mutual estrangement.Â After independence, Sikhs started arguing that their own contribution to the Freedom struggle had been the greatest given the high proportion of Sikhs among the martyrs.Â However, most of these fell during the Jallianwala Bagh shooting in Amritsar (1919), started as a peaceful gathering of people who had no intention of giving up their lives (the responsible officer was removed from his post, for the useless and unprovoked massacre totally deviated from British policy).Â The proportion of Sikhs who chose to wage their lives for Freedom was quite small; the one community which was heavily âoverrepresentedâ among the freedom fighters executed or otherwise punished by the British was the much-maligned Brahmin caste.61 It is a well-attested historical fact that the Sikh community as such was firmly loyalist (see Khushwant Singh, above, on the Sikhs in the British Army), even after the emotional estrangement from the British which followed the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.Â By contrast, the Arya Samaj can claim to have stood by the cause of Freedom, though it certainly has a history of compromise as well.

As for Dayanandaâs allegation that Guru Nanak was a pretender, Arya Samaj authors Pandit Lekh Ram (then) and Kshitish Vedalankar (recently) have defended it, arguing that Nanak could not read Sanskrit and was therefore not qualified to speak out on the Vedas and the Puranas.62 Modernists may sympathize with this irreverent and down-to-earth critique of a venerated saint, but it has a price, viz. the hostility of the saintâs followers.

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/wiah/ch8.htm

10-29-2006, 06:46 PM

QUOTEThe worst thing we could do is to end all acceptance from our side based on these vocal yet non-representative whiners. 

That these people are non-representative whiners must come from sikhs/jains/buddhists. Not from you. As that hasn't materialized, we must accept their silence as acquiescence. Doing otherwise is wishful thinking.

QUOTEThere are separatists (Khalistanis), modern 'Buddhist' movements in India, p-secs, communists, and missionary-incited troublemakers who would like nothing better than that Hindus take these few voices of dissent (and yes, the voices are few, though the internet has the power to multiply these baiters to the point where they seem the majority) and assume they speak for all Jains,...

THese are excuses that hindus normally come up with, whenever confronted by the fact that aside from christomuslims, others such as sikhs/jains too hate them. These hindus are not ignorant. They are in denial. Most hindus here and elsewhere are in denial.

QUOTEAs Bodhi observed, if we break things off from our end and reciprocate in similar fashion, we will most definitely only be serving the objectives of the separatist forces.

This applies in the case of muslims/christians too. One can reason that there must be hindu-muslim unity, so even if muslims attack and kill hindus, we must not reciprocate in similar fashion, lest we play into the hands of pakistanis who want to divide our country on this basis.

Bharatvarsh · 10-29-2006, 07:02 PM

QUOTEMaster Tara Singh the famous Sikh leader was the founding member of VHP. Even today, doesn't Akali Dal-BJP alliance, politically represents that unity for last couple of decades?
Master Tara Singh also made this famous statement:
QUOTESikhistan

The idea of having their own home state became firmly fixed in the Sikh mind at the time of the partition of old British India, when some Sikh country was shaved off to make part of what is now West Pakistan. Forced to move out, the Sikhs left a trail of massacre behind them, and were furious when Nehru ordered their swords to be sewn into their leather scabbards. Said old Tara Singh: 'When the Moslems can get Pakistan, and the Hindus India, why not a Sikhs' Sikhistan?' But Nehru's Congress Party won over many of Tara Singh's followers to the idea of peace, and of a multiracial India. In the 1951 general elections, Tara Singh's Shiromani Akali party lost heavily. 'Ye unbelievers,' cried old Tara Singh from out the depths of a magnificent beard, 'there will come a time when you will need me and flock around me - for your very survival!'

The time came when Nehru, reluctantly yielding to pressure from India's many language groups, appointed a State Reorganization Committee to advise 'on the realigning of states within India.' By skillful gerrymandering, Tara Singh worked out a scheme for a Punjabi-speaking state of 35,458 square miles, containing a population of 12 million, with the Sikhs in a slight minority. 'We multiply faster than Hindus and are more virile,' said Tara Singh. 'In ten years we will be in an absolute majority, leaving the soft-fleshed Hindus to trail behind.' Two months ago Tara Singh's party, regaining its popularity, began whooping it up for Sikhistan.

http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_070455a.html
QUOTEGovind Singhji's words in Dasham Granth, and you would realize how highly he thought of Hindus. He had even tried to free up Ram Janma Bhumi in Ayodhya from Mughals. Maharaja Ranjit Singh used to worship Ma Bhawani, perform Havans and was commited to Cow and Brahmin protection. (like Guru Govind Singh Ji)
All these are disputed by today's Sikh authors, also they point out that Maharaja Ranjit Singh was going against Sikh teachings when he did those things (and he was).

Some Sikh author's reject the Dasam Granth outright claiming it is not Guru Govind's writings, anyway it's in the same granth in the Zafarnama to Aurangzeb he quite clearly states that the hill rajas were idolators and he was an idol breaker.

Anyway it's not going to make any difference to Hindus whether Sikhs are Hindus or not, it's their decision to decide, let's concentrate on uniting the self declared Hindus, we are 800 million and nothing can stop us if we come together.

By the way if you want to talk to some interesting Sikhs, find the Sanatan one's and try and talk to them instead of the Akali clown's, I mean people like the Nihang's etc. They are also in the UK, find Nihang Niddar Singh (regularly attacked by Neo Sikhs), they are far more knowledgable.

10-29-2006, 10:16 PM

Maruti

I am from Gujarat. Yes I know plenty of Jains. In funds I have raised for hindu efforts, Jains have donated more funds then Hindus. Re Sikhs I have already posted the book review which is way more logical stuff then you have posted so far. So please..

Bharatvarsh · 10-30-2006, 04:50 AM

QUOTEMeanwhile, more believing Christians advised that forum members better stop writing about such things (because it might give cause to us hindoos to get upset or something). 
Husky you have a link to the thread?

**acharya** · 10-30-2006, 04:54 AM

India Hindu Militants Attack Christian Villagers, Several Detained
Sunday, 29 October 2006 ( less than one hour ago)

NEW DELHI, INDIA (BosNewsLife)-- Two Christian believers in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh were recovering from their injuries Sunday, October 29, after angry villagers and militants were beating them for their refusal to return to Hinduism, their previous religion.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 10-30-2006, 05:14 AM by Bodhi.)

Bharatvarsh,

I would rather be cautious and sceptical about using the writings of whom you call "Sikh writers of today", as well as all the host of sikh forums run by westerners. These "Sikh Writers" reject even that Guru Nanak himself was a Hindu! These so called scholars insist that the name of fifth Guru is not Sri Arjun Dev, but Arjan Dev! These scholars go lengths inventing the stories of Sikh persecution by Hindus and so on. These scholars are mass-produced by macaulian p-secularists, and funded by the likes.

Here is one statement of Master Tara Singh:

QUOTE
MASTER TARA SINGH WANTED A HINDU REVIVAL MOVEMENTÂ 

"Protection of Dharma is our Dharma. Khalsa Panth was born for that purpose. Never have I left Hinduism. Guru Govind Singh has produced a lot of Gurumukhi literature based on Vedas, Puranas and the like. Are we to leave all that? In fact Hindus and Sikhs are not two separate communities. Name is Sikh and beard... Mona (non beard) Sikh and Sevak... That is all... Sikhs live if Hinduism exists. If Sikhs live Hinduism lives. They are not two separate communities. They are one indeed. Lack of mutual confidence has been a small problem. This situation must be put to an end. I want to see that. A Hindu revival movement is very necessary and it will certainly come up. If Sri Guruji Golwalkar takes it up it could be easily built up." said the great Sikh leader Master Tara Singh, taking part in the deliberations at Pawai meeting in 1964, when the decision to start Vishva Hindu Parishad was taken. 
http://www.vhp.org/englishsite/a-origin_gr...ertarasingh.htm


Someone who has spoken thus, can not be attributed to Sikh separatists. Above is video recorded, photographed and so on, and published by RSS recently, to silence the so called "Sikh scholars". Since Master Tara Singh is a grand name to be reckoned with, the "sikh scholars" invent stories and statements attributed to him. We should be careful about those manufactured statements and stories.

About Swami Dayanand having called Sri Guru Nanak a fool!! I have not heard anything like that ever. And although I have read Swamiji's works, I am open to learn and change my opinions. Here is an online resource of Satyarth Prakash. Link will directly take to the 11th chapter of the book, which contains his criticism of all faiths practiced in India. If you read the whole content, you would notice that although he has not spared anyone including Adi Shankar, Ramanujacharya, Yamunacharya etc, yet he is softer on Jains and Sikhs. In the section where he criticises Jains and Bauddhas, he limits it to Murti-Puja and that too to two particular schools. http://www.aryasamajjamnagar.org/chaptereleven.htm#6

I did not find any mention of Guru Nanak in his writing, but then part of the book seems to be down on that site. Can you please pass on some resource which can be considered auhentic, where Swami Dayanand is shown to have called Guru Nanak a fool!! (I am sure he may have called something but certain not a fool)

Maruti, what can I say, if you can not make a distinction between Christians/Muslims and Sikh/Jain/Bauddhas.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 11-25-2006, 12:35 PM by Husky.)

EDIT

QUOTEHusky you have a link to the thread?Two of those that I can track back at present are:
http://www.mail-archive.com/goanet@goane...41999.html
CORRECTED: http://www.mail-archive.com/goanet@goane...41849.html

There are several threads discussing Hindu temples destroyed by Christos from Portugal. One of these threads is at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/goanet@goane...index.html
Another thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/goanet@goane...thrd2.html
Keep looking for the word 'temple' in these - they occur several times.
There are several Christians who are writing honestly about the Christo past in Goa (brownie points for them, but as expected, they are accused of being atheists if not apostates by others in this Goan forum). Yet others are in denial and like to wipe away the guilt of Christianity's intolerance with the usual sermon on how "all religions have done bad".

The quote on the book suggestion (Rui Gomes Pereira, 'Hindu temples and Deities') I posted earlier is from
http://www.mail-archive.com/goanet@goane...41643.html

On another matter,
Some in the Goa forums are still blaming Hindus for "raping Catholic nuns" - I think Christians all over the world do a fine job of that themselves. No need to deflect blame on uninvolved others. The Jhabua allegations made against Hindus have been shown to be false, but it has apparently not trickled down to Christian circles. See
http://www.mail-archive.com/goanet@goane...41973.html

Oh, and I especially love this one: Someone posted a p-sec's news(?) report titled
'Da Vinci Code': Christians catch the fundamentalist virus
http://www.mail-archive.com/goanet@goane...40649.html
QUOTEMercifully, the Christian protests did not involve any violence unlike
the Hindu militants' attacks on exhibitions of M.F. Husain's
contentious paintings. But there was at least one person, former
Mumbai corporator Nicholas Almeida, who offered a reward of Rs.1.1
million to anyone who brought the author of the book before him 'dead
or alive'.To our p-secs, apparently Hindus mob, but Christos mercifully only protest. And a death threat to Dan "da vinci code" Brown issued by an Indian bishop is also merely a protest of course. Doesn't compare with the T'ban threats.

10-30-2006, 06:35 AM

QUOTEAbout Swami Dayanand having called Sri Guru Nanak a fool!! I have not heard anything like that ever.
He never said, only discouraged mixing Islam and Hindusim. Joker like Khushwant Singh who are only expert in porn literature claims whatever comes out of his mind.

Bharatvarsh · 10-30-2006, 06:36 AM

QUOTEI would rather be cautious and sceptical about using the writings of whom you call "Sikh writers of today", as well as all the host of sikh forums run by westerners. These "Sikh Writers" reject even that Guru Nanak himself was a Hindu! These so called scholars insist that the name of fifth Guru is not Sri Arjun Dev, but Arjan Dev! These scholars go lengths inventing the stories of Sikh persecution by Hindus and so on. These scholars are mass-produced by macaulian p-secularists, and funded by the likes.
Ok instead of all this, let us turn to Guru Gobind's own words:
QUOTEAgm sUrbIry auTih isMG joDw ]
pkV qurk gn kau krY vY inroDw ]
byAMq blvwn sUrbIr isMG joDy auTngy [
auh qurkW dy gn (smUh) hoky aunWH nUM blhIn kr dyxgy [
Ample brave Singh warriors will rise.
They will face the Turks and and make them defenceless.

skl jgq mo Kwlsw pMQ gwjY ]
jgY Drm ihMduk qurkn duMd BwjY ]
swry jgq ivc Kwlsw pMQ dw bol bwlw hovygw [
ihMdU Drm PYl jwvygw qy qurkW nUM BwjV pY jwvygI [
Throughout the world the Khalsa Panth will be prominent
The Hindu Dharma will prevail, and the Turks will be in flight.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivili...n/message/79690
QUOTEBhagavatii Chhanda 5
duhuun pantha men kapata vi`daye calaanii |
bhur.a tiisaraa pantha kiije pradhaanii ||
Both Panthas are getting contaminated.
Come and elevate a third Pantha.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivili...n/message/79735
Both are from Ugradanti (a bani in praise of the Devi) used only by the Nihang's and Namdharis in their liturgy.

It is in this text that the famous quote that Hindus show is found (which I quoted here) but it is in the same text that Guru Gobind says that "Both Panthas are getting contaminated" and that a third panth needs to be elevated.

Now what are the two panths except Hinduism and Islam?

The third panth is of course the Khalsa Panth.
QUOTESomeone who has spoken thus, can not be attributed to Sikh separatists. Above is video recorded, photographed and so on, and published by RSS recently, to silence the so called "Sikh scholars". Since Master Tara Singh is a grand name to be reckoned with, the "sikh scholars" invent stories and statements attributed to him. We should be careful about those manufactured statements and stories.
He said many things over his lifetime, the statement I quoted was from the times newspaper and the site I quoted is not a Khalistani one, it has articles exposing Bhindrenwale also.

Here is a statement from him:
QUOTETHE PUNJAB NOT A MUSLIM PROVINCE

âI place my claimâ, wrote Master Tara Singh upon the fact that the Punjab is not a Muslim Province.Â âI do not even admit that the Muslims are in a majority in the population.Â Punjab History in the Sikh History.Â It is the birth-place of the Sikh religion and the Sikh Gurus; most if not all the Punjab Martyrs are the Sikh martyrs.Â The Sikhs are the only people who take pride in Punjabi culture and language.Â Muslim poet will sing of Mecca and Madina; a Hindu poet will sing of Ganga and Banaras; but the Sikh poet will sing of the Ravi and Chanabâ.

http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/mla/ap41-49.htm
Where were the Vedas composed?

And what land were the composers praising when they praised Saraswati river?

Here is some more info:
QUOTEThe present Jathedar of the Budha Dal, Akali Nihang Baba Santa Singh commented:

âThey [the S.G.P.C.] are enemies of the true Khalsa form [Budha Dal Akali Nihangs]. Because only after making pledges did they get the Act Bill passed. They [S.G.P.C.] said: âWe accept the Gurdwara Act.â [The British replied], âWe [British] will pass the Act Bill but the Priests [Udasi Mahants] have made pledges.â ââWhat pledges?â [asked the S.G.P.C.]. [The British replied], âThat they would not raise a voice for Khalsa Raj.â They [the S.G.P.C.] said: âThis pledge we will also make.â After making this pledge they got the Act Bill passed. Under the jurisdiction of it [the Act] all are S.G.P.C. Gurdwaras. They [the S.G.P.C.] are enslaved by it.â
Akali Nihang Baba Santa Singh, transcript of interview on Vaisakhi 1999

In the ensuing conflict between the British-backed S.G.P.C. and the Budha Dal, the companion Jathedar of the Akal Takht, Akali Nihang Baba Sahib Singhâs arm was broken by S.G.P.C. thugs within the Akal Takht itself. The sacred scripture, Dasam Guru Durbar that was traditionally kept at the Akali Takht was thrown on ground by Teja Singh Samundri and Master Tara Singh. In addition, they had the British imprison the Budha Dal Nihangs. More of what transpired will be revealed in articles in the future on www.sarbloh.info.

http://www.sarbloh.info/htmls/article_sa...sgpc6.html
Only the Nihang's still give equal importance to both SGGS and Dasam Granth.
QUOTEAbout Swami Dayanand having called Sri Guru Nanak a fool!! I have not heard anything like that ever. And although I have read Swamiji's works, I am open to learn and change my opinions. Here is an online resource of Satyarth Prakash. Link will directly take to the 11th chapter of the book, which contains his criticism of all faiths practiced in India. If you read the whole content, you would notice that although he has not spared anyone including Adi Shankar, Ramanujacharya, Yamunacharya etc, yet he is softer on Jains and Sikhs. In the section where he criticises Jains and Bauddhas, he limits it to Murti-Puja and that too to two particular schools. http://www.aryasamajjamnagar.org/chaptereleven.htm#6

I did not find any mention of Guru Nanak in his writing, but then part of the book seems to be down on that site. Can you please pass on some resource which can be considered auhentic, where Swami Dayanand is shown to have called Guru Nanak a fool!! (I am sure he may have called something but certain not a fool)
I don't have the exact reference but I will try and find it, but anyway here is something from Goel:
QUOTEI do not remember at this distance in time my reactions to the learned discussions which the Satyartha Prakasa carries on many subjects. But I do remember very vividly the painful shock I received as I read its remarks about Kabir and Nanak. These were two of the most hallowed names I had cherished since my first awakening to a religious consciousness. I concluded that Swami Dayananda had been unnecessarily unkind to these great saints, and that his way of thinking was wrong. That was the end of Arya Samaj for me at that time. It was years later when I read Sri Aurobindo's Bankim, Tilak, Dayananda that I bowed, in repentance and renewed reverence, before that fearless lion of a man who tried his best to rescue and revive the Vedic vision among the Hindus. A true understanding and appreciation of the crucial cultural role which the Arya Samaj played at a critical juncture in our national life dawned on me simultaneously.

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/hibh/ch1.htm

10-30-2006, 06:38 AM

An old but relevant article by Varsha Bhosle about relationship of Sikhism and Hinduism, and source of friction...

QUOTEMy mind is in a more chaotic state than usual. It's the result of a periodic affliction, under which spells I suffer greatly but emerge none the wiser. I'm wondering, could the current virus lead me to new ideological plains? See, after the Kamala Das episode, I had "words" with my Sardar. It began with his expressing admiration for her courage to forsake all for Love, and continued through sizzling attacks which had nil to do with the dippy dame, and ended with light spanking. All in all, very stimulating, indeed. And educational, too. For I unexpectedly got a glimpse into a mindset I never associated with Sikhs -- that of the minorities. MY Sardar?! I quietly died.

I've always been baffled by the large chunk of hate mail from Singhs. It's as easy to delete the trash from the Sens and Nambiars (label them "pinko"), as from the Khans. But, Sardars?! I just couldn't fathom why they hated me to death, and why there should be more of those who hate me. To my mind, Sikhs just couldn't be all that goes by the Indian aberration known as "secularists." They form nearly 33 per cent of the Indian army, and I couldn't see them as stupid, limp-wristed wimps. I liked them, and so they *had* to like me. Therefore, each hate mail was a personal breach of faith.

Now I find that I never knew them at all... Of course, I made the classic boo-boo of bunching different individuals under one tag, and I'm doing it again by ascribing one Sikh's thoughts to the lot -- but that's how things work in the real world. Here are my findings: Sikhs believe Sikhism to be a very distinctive minority religion of India. Sikhs detest me because they see me as a symbol of a majoritarian threat to their identity... When I finally managed to drag this out of my reluctant Sardar, I was too shocked to react, let alone rebut. Actually, I burst into tears.

There are about 18 million Sikhs in India, comprising 1.8 per cent of the population. They form 62.95 per cent of Punjab's 20 million people while... Screw stats, here are vignettes of what attracted me. 1860: Baba Ram Singh, leader of the Namdhari movement, raising the banner of revolt against the British regime... 1913: The founding of the Ghadar Party in SF to liberate India from the British yoke... Udham Singh's defence of his assassination of Lt Gov Michael O'Dwyer: "He wanted to crush the spirit of my people, so I have crushed him"... 1942: Their taking the lead in Netaji's Indian National Army for the liberation of India, with Gen Mohan Singh organising the Sikhs of Malaysia against the British... 27 October, 1947: "The British Indian Army transformed into the Indian Army, with the first Sikh regiment arriving in Srinagar to save it from the marauding tribesmen sent from across the border by Pakistan"...

But that ain't the point. While arguing, I'd said: "Why would I even blink if my daughter wanted to marry a Sikh? There'd be no cultural or religious disparity she'd have to face." Which had brought forth the Hinduism-wants-to-swallow-our-identity line... Thing is, Hindus are conditioned to regard Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism as "panths" or sects. My folks told me that the elder son would become a Sikh while the younger remained Hindu; that the Gurus were devotees of Ram and Krishna; that the Marathi sant-poet Namdev's hymns are included in the Granth Sahib; that, prior to the tenth Guru, there was no separate name for the followers of Guru Nanak and they were considered a part and parcel of Hinduism; that Guru Govind Singh gave the name "Sikh" to those who were willing to fight the tyranny of the Mughals. I was taught that Hinduism is a generic name given to all the faiths which have roots in India and believe in Parmatma (God), Prarthana (prayer), Punerjanma (reincarnation), Purushartha (Karma) and Prani Daya (kindness to all living beings). Sikhism believes in all...

So my Sardar said, "We believe in martial traditions; we do not believe in a caste system; and we most certainly do not worship idols." And I wondered, is the Kshatriya not martial? Is there no caste among Sikhs? One of the greatest modern Sikh leaders, Master Tara Singh, petitioned the GoI to provide special benefits to Harijan Sikhs! He was also one of the founding members of the VHP! At a meeting in Bombay on August 19, 1964, Tara Singh declared, "Sikhs and Hindus are not separate. Sikhs will survive only if Hindus survive. Sikhs are part and parcel of the Hindu Society. Guru Govind Singhji brought in Gurumukhi the wisdom and philosophy from our scriptures and Puranas. Are we going to give up this heritage?"

And as for idol worship, what few understand is that Hinduism is monotheistic as well as catholic. Parmeshwar, or Brahmatma, is the pivot, the godhead, into which Man will merge on achieving moksha. Its catholicity lies in allowing Man to think for himself and find his own path to moksha. Hinduism has its icons -- like Islam has the Ka'ba -- which are only a means of concentrating the mind. Sikhs worship the Granth Sahib and pictures of the Gurus -- aren't they icons? Till Durgayana Mandir was built, Durga's idol was worshipped in the Harmandir Saheb!

I wondered, when did this wedge of irreconcilable differences get driven between Hindus and Sikhs? What are the roots of Sikhism...? Here are some stanzas from the Gurus and the Guru Granth Saheb:

* Taha hum adhik tapasya sadhi / Mahakal kalika aradhi ~ Guru Govind Singh
(There I worshipped and did penance to seek Kali.)

* Ram katha jug jug atal / Sab koi bhakhat net Suragbas Raghuver kara / Sagri puri samet Jo en Katha sune aur gaave / Dukh pap tah nikat na aave ~ Guru Govind Singh
(The story of Ram is immortal and everyone should read it. Ram went to heaven along with the whole city. Whoever listens to or sings His story, will be free of sin and sorrow.)

* Kahaiya Hinduan daro na ab tum / Im likho pathon dil sain Guru Nanak ki gadi par / Ab hain Tegh Bahadur Unko jo Muhummadi kar lihoon / To ham hain sab sadar Arya Dharma rakhak pragatiyo hain ~ Guru Tegh Bahadur
(Hindus, do not fear, Guru Tegh Bahadur is Guru Nanak's successor. If Muslims bother you, I'll take care of them. For I am the protector of Hinduism.)

* Tin te sun Siri Tegh Bahadur / Dharam nibaahan bikhe Bahadur Uttar bhaniyo, dharam hum Hindu / Atipriya ko kin karen nikandu Lok parlok ubhaya sukhani / Aan napahant yahi samani Mat mileen murakh mat loi / Ise tayage pramar soi Hindu dharam rakhe jag mahin / Tumre kare bin se it nahin ~ Guru Tegh Bahadur's reply to Aurangzeb's ordering him to embrace Islam.
(In response, Shri Tegh Bahadur says, My religion is Hindu and how can I abandon what is so dear to me? This religion helps you in this world and that, and only a fool would abandon it. God himself is the protector of this religion and no one can destroy it.)

* Sakal jagat main Khalsa Panth gaje / Jage dharam Hindu sakal bhand bhaje ~ Guru Govind Singh.
(The Khalsa sect will roar around the world. Hinduism will awaken, its enemies will flee.)

What's more heart-breaking is the new-found empathy between certain Sikhs and Pakistanis. How could a "Sang Sabha" of Sikhs -- at Lahore -- listen to the Jamaat-e-Islami say: "Do not consider yourselves alone in the fight for freedom. All the Muslims of the world are with you." Have they so soon forgotten the Hindu and Sikh corpse-laden trains from Pakistan? In June, N S Malik wrote about the training of Paki soldiers: "To Pakistan's army, 'the only good Indian is a dead Indian,' and the funniest item of the Pagal Gymkhana in their cantonments is the beating given to a sickly looking man depicted as a Sikh, a symbol of India. Children and adults are blindfolded and made to take a stick and hit this effigy. The audience gets fantastic fun out of it." Such Sikhs are the progeny of the clergy of the Golden Temple, led by Arur Singh, who had honoured the massacring Gen Dyer by declaring him a Sikh, on condition that he renounce one cigarette a year...

I've been told that Sikhs feel "betrayed badly by India." Or, "I can't understand how they can fight for that country or wave the flag merely because they were born there." Or, "Do you expect them to stand up for India if they had seen their near ones die?" Look at it this way: There's Papa, Mama, Big Brother, Little Brother, Sister. One day, Big Brother badly beats up Little Brother for being naughty. So Little Brother throws stuff around, does considerable damage and leaves home. Next, he calls Mama "that woman," and demands a share of the estate on the threat of blowing up the family... I'm sorry, but I spit on this type.

The Blue Star fiasco cost India many brave jawans since they were ordered to minimise the destruction of the Golden Temple and thus were unnecessarily exposed to militant fire. However, the crux is: The Sikh community itself bears as great a share of the blame as Mrs G and the Congress. For they turned a blind eye to the militants holed up in the/ gurudwara and who ventured out to murder and create mayhem at will. As one of my Mallus had said, "If Guruvayoor or Sabarimala were being used in such a manner, I'd be the first to cheer along a military action to flush out the bastards."

I'm sick of hearing about how Sikhs feel aggrieved by the 1984 massacres. If they're so aggrieved, how and why did 62.95 per cent Sikh Punjab vote Congress...? Did Balasaheb or Rajju Bhaiya lead the rioters in Delhi? Did Hindus murder Sikhs -- or did the acolytes of the Nehru-Gandhis...?

And, of course, the pinkos... Vijay Prashad, an assistant professor of International Studies at Trinity College, Hartford, and a member of FOIL, wrote about the Tenth Hindu Conference in NYC, where a resolution was passed urging "all the Hindus of the world to act in a broad and nationalistic manner rising above their personal beliefs and creeds, parochial languages, and provincial and sectarian considerations such as Gujarati, Punjabi, Tamilian, Telugu, Bengali, Jains, Sikhs, etc." Prashad's note: "The VHP offers the Hindu (and Sikh and Jain!) migrant an easy task: give money for work in India, to help those Hindus who are in 'distress'."

A Singh, professor at RI College commenting on a book on Tipu Sultan: "...surely most of butchering of Sikhs in the 18th cen took place at the hands of invading Muslims or Moghuls, but many Hindu rulers and/or Hindu ministers, for example, of Sirhand and Lahore governors were effectively responsible for much violence against the Sikhs. But we tend to evade or suppress these facts to present Sikhism as an anti-Islamic tradition allied unambiguously with Hinduism." What to say?

Since May 1941, pinkos have advocated the multinational theory. A CPI resolution classified 16 Indian nations (Pathans, Punjabis, Sikhs, Sindhis, Hindustanis, Tamils, Kannadigas, Malayalees etc) and stated that each should be granted the right of secession. Bhindranwale convinced thousands of Sikhs -- one of the most industrious and prosperous groups -- that India made slaves of them, and the Intellectuals stressed that because they had been wronged, they have the right to separate. The destruction of the Babri by Hindus is "vandalism," but the terrorism of Khalistanis and Kashmiri Muslims is a "resurgence of sub-nationalities." They set the stage -- and the Sikhs danced. What a tragedy...


Where is Varsha Bhosle gone?

Bharatvarsh · 10-30-2006, 06:53 AM

QUOTEWhere is Varsha Bhosle gone?
Varsha explain's in her own words:
QUOTE> Hi,
>
> Actually, you've got my so-called ploy all wrong.
> However, I don't expect
> guys with your mentality to understand that.
>
> You'll be pleased to know that you 'secularists'
> have a successful and
> time-tested way of tackling free speech: I am no
> longer writing for Rediff
> since its top honcho, Ajit Balakrishnan (also
> involved with Communalism
> Combat), finds me 'very inflammatory.' That's surely
> something to rejoice
> over. Yes, please do post my comments on your
> newsgroup.
>
> vb

[edited: Bharatvarsh, url removed]

10-30-2006, 07:29 AM

Maruti,
Bodhi and Rajesh have answered your posts very kindly and left it at that. Sorry that I can not do the same. I am argumentative by nature and so far no one has been able to correct me, least of all myself.

Before I can begin to accept your statements on how ChristoIslamism is the same as Buddhism and Jainism, I will need you to research and document a listing of all the atrocities committed by Buddhists (and based on their religious beliefs) against non-Buddhists. And, the documentation must be throughout history and throughout the regions where Buddhism has spread historically. I must stress again, the research must prove beyond a doubt that Buddhist beliefs incited any atrocities and violence mentioned. Same for Jainism please.

Also provide statements of greatly respected Buddhists and Jains - like those well-known ones of highly influential Christian theologians and saints - that spurred followers of these faiths to acts of violence against others. For example, the beloved saint Thomas Aquinas' cherished articulation of Christo doctrine:
QUOTE"Unbelievers deserve not only to be separated from the Church, but also... to be exterminated from the World by death."
- Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1271
The Early Church Councils: murder, heresy and shaping future beliefs
( http://freetruth.50webs.org/A2a.htm )
Then, draw direct lines of consequence from such intolerant words to the resulting violent actions (this is very clearly proven in the ChristoIslamic cases).

The following do not count, so you can ignore them in your research:
- Communist rewriting of Buddhist (or Jain) history. Including communist propaganda against Tibetan Buddhism which accuses the Tibetan Buddhists of abuse, fraud, oppression and other crimes.
- Christo propaganda against Korean Buddhists or other Buddhists and Jains.
- Western p-sec writings (which are also Christo) castigating Buddhism or Jainism for whatever. Christos are commanded to spread ze holy word of gawd, hence they will lie and I can not trust their allegations.
This includes modern western Christo ('secular') lies about blaming Buddhism for the existence and oppression of Burakumin (sp?) of Japan. The introduction of Buddhism might have not changed the then-existing Japanese society and the status quo, but it does not teach people to create such a class.
- No pinpointing Buddhism as the cause of war, battles and sparring of Samurais and their masters in Japan's history. These civil strifes were going on before their adoption of Buddhism, and Buddhism changed but little of this. (Shintoism is not to blame for these either - they were political disputes.)

Since you believe that the fascism which is ChristoIslamism is no different from Buddhism and Jainism, you will doubtless have no trouble whatsoever to track down heinous crimes Buddhists and Jains have committed throughout history in their regions of proliferation/existence. Especially since these religions are several centuries (according to western Christo dating) if not millennia older than Christianity and Islam. Imagine, you'll have much more evidence for the 'inhumanity and intolerance' of Buddism and Jainism than even ChristoIslamism can boast of.

For examples of what I am expecting see the link to a site on Christianity in my sig. (The links on Islam in my sig are insufficient as examples. Instead look to Bharatvarsha, the resident expert on Islamic terrorism throughout history, who has written numerous posts exposing the loving and peaceful nature of that other gift to the world, Islam.)

I have no qualms about admitting I am completely wrong, but first require proof to do so. So I look forward to you enlightening me on the terrorist nature of Jaina and Buddhist religion. Until then, I'm afraid, I will continue in my respect for both these religions and in disputing their being lumped together with the terrorist religion(s) of ChristoIslamism.
You may decide not to put so much effort in, of course, and can disregard my request altogether. But unless you back up your words with indisputable data, and yet continue to argue in the same line, I might have to start questioning your motives.
Either way, I can not accept your mere say-so and will have to stop responding on this matter until well-supported arguments from your end are forthcoming.

10-30-2006, 11:15 AM

To Husky, Rajesh, Bodhi and the rest,

Seems as if with the exception of Husky, no one has the patience to turn the pages and understand a thing or two. So I'll make it simple.

Your comments (and the comments of most Hindus in denial): Sikhs/jains/buddhists are friendly to hindus, they care about hindus. I have many friends who love me and my religion. they will be sympathetic to the cause of hindutva etc. etc.

My comments:

The burdern of proof rests on your shoulders, NOT on mine, as Husky has suggested. Because I don't have to prove a negative proposition. If you believe that sikhs/jains/buddhists are sympathetic to the cause of Hindutva, the onus is on you to prove it. You make the dubious claim that these sects support Hindus, so it's up to you to substantiate this claim with cold, hard facts. It's that simple.

Instead of solid proof, what I've read so far: ****I had a sikh friend in kindergarten who loved my religion, jains donated so much, I question your motives, maruti, can't you see the difference between sikhs/jains and christians....**** All these are, no doubt, sentimental, but devoid of logic, so there is no reason why anyone would accept these opinions.

And people like Rajesh consider this line of reasoning as logical. If this is logic, even mullahs are logical.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?