When Did India Become Modern

12-09-2006, 01:23 AM

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 11:42 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 8 2006, 11:11 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 05:01 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 8 2006, 02:50 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)Kartik: I may be wrong about the Shahi being Brahmin example. I just read that Hindu Shahis belonged to two dynasties, the first one being Brahmin, the second one Janjua Rajput which started with Jayapala. But I remember reading in some Mohyal site of Jayapala also being Brahmin. If somebody can provide input on the same please do.
[right][snapback]61818[/snapback][/right]

This is wrong. Brhamins and rajputs have no connection.

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61830[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Please see www.mohyal.com, the history of Vaids and tell me why you are so sure. They claim even Porus was a Mohyal. Mohyals are Brahmins.
[right][snapback]61831[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Kartik,
Mohil is a shakha of chauhan rajputs. Page 360 : Annals and antiquities of ancient rajasthan: James Tod,
QUOTE Manik Rae......had numerous progeny...The Kheechie, the Hara, the Mohil....
are all descended from him. Mohils rules 1400 villages as late as 15th centruy around Nagore.
You can read about Mohil chief here:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajput_Chivalry

Mohil and Mohyal have no connection.
Also there are many theories about Porus. Some claim him to be a Khatri, some Brahmin and so on.

Shahi rajputs as I told you earlier are still around and have no connection with mohyal brahmins.

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61853[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Digvijayji,

I've never referred to Mohils at all. I have been only talking about Mohyals and what they claim about themselves in their site.
[right][snapback]61858[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Claims are baseless. I told you that the closest rajput to the word Mohyal is Mohil who happens to be a chauhan Shakha. It is a fashion these days to make a connection to rajputs. There are numerous groups trying to be the forefathers of rajputs. List is long.

-Digvijay

12-09-2006, 01:28 AM

QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 9 2006, 12:56 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 07:39 PM)<Zoroastrian commentary snipped>

Compare it with India in 10th-13th centuries and thereafter. Hinduism because of its inherent tolerant spirit was going through a period of revival after the degradation to tantrism etc in the post Gupta period.
We are really fortunate that we had a figure like Adi Shankara at the right time. I can tell you with some confidence, that India is Hindu today is in no small measure due to this great saint and scholar. Adi Shankara made us spiritual yet again, gave us faith, put in a framework and system to accomodate all strands of thought. Then came Ramanuja, the Saivite Nayanars and Vaishnavite Alwars, who brought a belief in devotion to God in the laity. India at the advent of Islam in India was politically weak, but religiously strong and the general public had faith in their religious beliefs.
[right][snapback]61840[/snapback][/right]

You are arguing unnecessarily Kartik. Faith has nothing to do with the survival of Hinduism. Hindus survived because they fought. You are not to able to comprehend what a war and fighting it really means. You fail to understand that Islamic armies carried crescent over thousands of square miles even to Spain and converted these lands completely. This was done through sword. Had Hindus lost completely you would be reading a Kalma today. A defeated population has no God or choice to follow a God no matter they are followers of Hinduism or xyz.

Please research more.

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61865[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Faith is the fuel for anything to work. When you are in battle in the midst of fierce hordes of your enemy, what is the belief that keeps your hand on your sword. Why do people jump into battle fray taking the name of Lord. Please tell me why did Rajputs fight, why did the Shahis fight down to their last ruler, why did the Vijayanagara empire come about because first and foremost we had a strong set of beliefs, which differed from those who sought to subjugate us. Unless there were those set of beliefs which matched in their strength of faith to those held by Muslims, we would not have stood our ground. Even today where do soldiers get their josh, where do they get the patience to keep a timeless vigil. Our religion gives us a stability and assurance. First it was faith and then it was sword. Without the faith the sword would just be a piece of metal, with the faith it become the defender of your honour and traditions.

You look at Islam and Arabs themselves. In 6th century they were nothing, within a century and half they had conquerod far off Spain. What suddenly changed in a nomadic desert people that they became world conquerors. It was not as if they were non-martial before and suddenly an entire community became brave. It was not as if they found some new military technology hiteherto unfound. The change and the only change which caused all other changes was Islam. What did Islam give to these people. It gave them a strong set of beliefs by which they could live and die. It was faith.

12-09-2006, 01:48 AM

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 8 2006, 11:29 PM)
Few points to consider:
a) Wikipedia is a useless source for history. Its contents would not let one pass entry level history exams in any univ.


Kartik: Too generalised a comment. Some of the articles don't make sense, but it does help you to get some facts right. Before dismissing the article cited off hand, do read it

</div>

Actually I just paraphrased what Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder, told media when asked about some students who flunked there history exam because they had used wiki to prepare for there exam.

QUOTE(digvijay)b) The Rashtrakuta rulers recorded themselves as descendants from Satyaki of Yaduvansha.

c) Rathores consider themselves descendants of Suryavansh.

d) Now we should ignore what these rulers have recorded for there lineages which they meticulously preserved and we should believe the conjectures of modern historians.

<b>e) Rathore origin is shrouded in mystery BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT that they are descendants of some ancient Kshatriya dynasty of India. It would take more research to figure out which one though.</b>

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM)Kartik: It seems you have already formed an unshakeable opinion that they are of Kshatriya origin and that researches can only help you figure out how to justify and prove it your predetermined hypothesis.


No. I have not. I clearly state that more research is needed but I do trust the rajputs and there records about there history more then what a historian from west or JNU would tell me say about rashtrakutas and rathores.

QUOTE(digvijay)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)Also Solankis, one of the fire born clans of Rajputs are of Chalukya lineage. Chalukya origin itself has quite a few theories, I think six in number. Anyways they were a ruling class originating from Karnataka. Considering this I think it is wrong to argue that Rajputs are warriors by blood, for the ancestry of Chauhans is different from Solankis.


Why is it wrong to argue they are warriors by blood?
</div>

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM)Kartik: To contend that predisposition and aptitude towards certain professions due to socio economic, political etc factors is ok to some extent, but to argue that it is in blood is illogical. Even if you empirically prove that every Rajput till date has been a brave warrior, which is of course not the case, your theory is still not valid. For even if one or a few turn out to not to be brave then the warrior by blood theory is disproved. Conversely there are many courageous, enterprising and martial men and women in other communities too. Also who determines the scale of bravery. It is too subjective an area to make absolute claims.


No it is not. Even if we ignore the past for a moment, please answer why in independent India overwhelming majority of PVC and MVC are won by traditional warrior classes of India?

-Digvijay

12-09-2006, 02:02 AM

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)I don't have much idea about other Rajput clans.

Do ask questions.
QUOTE(kartiksri) They modeled into a warrior clan because of their location towards the frontier of India which was open to invasions. I have seen the link that you have given. Please give me clear answers as to why you believe India remained Hindu if it is not due to inherent strength of Hindu philosophy and our huge population. I take the following from your link.


There is nothing about the inherent strenght of a religion when some muslim was holding the sword on the neck of a hindu to eat beef and renounce hinduism.

You are arguing like the priests at Somnath who kept praying to the God to save the temple and them. Ofcourse the sword prevailed even though 50,000 rajputs put up a big fight for 2 continous days and nights to defend Somnath against Ghazni Mahmud. Also he beat a hasty retreat because Mihir Bhoja started from his capital to meet him.</div>

Kartik: Well frankly there were too many Hindus to be threatened and converted, than what they could manage. Financial and political coercions alone were not able to shake the Hindus faith. Thats the strength of our religion.</div>
Nonsense. You are talking like Marxist historians. When an army is defeated and the population given two options:
a) change your religion
b) accept Islam and live.
How does the strength of faith, or religious leader or whatever else come into the picture?

Start using some logic.QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM)Secondly for a kingdom to function smoothly it requires the cooperation of the general populace. You can continue to subdue an unsubduable population using sword only for a cerain time period. A wise ruler understands that he requires to collect taxes, get farmers to produce crops otherwise everyone will die of hunger. If Hindus did not live and earn, how would they be able to pay jizya which was a big source of state income.


You are still not following. If you analyse the economy of muslim rule you will figure out Jiziya accounted for 1.5 months of yearly salary of the lowest class. It was done so to effect most conversions from the lowest class. And if a hindu farmer became muslim why would he stop tilling the land?QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM)I'm not saying that the armed resistance was not important, but that alone would not have been able to succeed unless there was a strong faith in the people.

Faith is useless in front of a conquering army. If your entire country got subjugated and the populace had no one to defend them then the situation is what happened in Iran i.e _ALL_ have to convert to Islam. So having good faith and saints etc is useless.
The key is that you CAN NEVER be defeated in toto. if that happens you are toast i.e you would be reading a Kalma today.

-Digvijay

12-09-2006, 02:04 AM

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM)Before the Maratha renaissance, for centuries there were many saints like Jnaneshwar, Tukaram, Namdev, Choka Mela, Eknath, Ramdas etc all coming from different sections of society, some were potters, cobblers etc., who through simple songs and the simple concept of Bhakti created a strong faith in religious principles. For the fervour to come in wielding the sword, you require a strong faith. Muslims of the expansion period had a strong faith in their religion otherwise before they were just nomads in the desert. Shivaji had great regard for Ramdas for his efforts towards galvanising the Hindu populace.


Irrelevant.
QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)"But it was the strength of Rajput sword and later Maratha and Sikh swords that kept Hinduism alive in India. If there were no Rajputs, Marathas or Sikhs in India, then India would be just like Iraq, Iran, Turkey, or Pakistan in terms of religion of the population. Every month, in the 1000 year presence of Muslims in India there were bloody wars between Hindus and Muslims. This is quite unlike other countries like Iran, where non-muslims, after loosing a couple of wars gave the muslims a free hand in converting there population to Islam."

If this is what you opine ("If there were no Rajputs, Marathas,...), then let me remind you that the first successful indigenous resistence against Muslim rule was the Vijayanagara empire.


Are you serious? Have you read the Hunter quote here (Muslims had been trying to conquer India sincethe death of Muhammad and had no success for many hundred years. What are you basing your arguments on?):

http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_a...asions_of_India

QUOTE(kartiksri) They suffered some 20 years of Muslim subjugation from 1316 to 1336, but they could not even tolerate that much. And the inspiration for Vijayanagara was when sage Vidyaranya asked Harihara and Bukka to save their religion and way of life. The Hindu culture has survived because of its adherents deep attachment to the religion, which they clearly saw as different way of life than what Islam tried to propogate. And it was commonfolk of the Deccan, not any particular race which overthrew Muslims down south. Given a particular set of conditions, socio-economic or political any community can respond.
[right][snapback]61834[/snapback][/right]

Your thesis is completely wrong.
[right][snapback]61834[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Kartik: After Muslim conquest of Delhi and then later Deccan, Vijayanagara was the first succesful indigenous enterprise which threw away the Sultanate's rule. You can read of how it came about. Then you can comment with reasons why my thesis is wrong.
[right][snapback]61862[/snapback][/right]
</div>

You have no idea what your talking about. Do you know who Kumbha was? WHo was Bappa Rawal? Who was Rao Maldeo Rathore?

-Digvijay

12-09-2006, 02:10 AM

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 01:28 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 9 2006, 12:56 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 07:39 PM)<Zoroastrian commentary snipped>

Compare it with India in 10th-13th centuries and thereafter. Hinduism because of its inherent tolerant spirit was going through a period of revival after the degradation to tantrism etc in the post Gupta period.
We are really fortunate that we had a figure like Adi Shankara at the right time. I can tell you with some confidence, that India is Hindu today is in no small measure due to this great saint and scholar. Adi Shankara made us spiritual yet again, gave us faith, put in a framework and system to accomodate all strands of thought. Then came Ramanuja, the Saivite Nayanars and Vaishnavite Alwars, who brought a belief in devotion to God in the laity. India at the advent of Islam in India was politically weak, but religiously strong and the general public had faith in their religious beliefs.
[right][snapback]61840[/snapback][/right]

You are arguing unnecessarily Kartik. Faith has nothing to do with the survival of Hinduism. Hindus survived because they fought. You are not to able to comprehend what a war and fighting it really means. You fail to understand that Islamic armies carried crescent over thousands of square miles even to Spain and converted these lands completely. This was done through sword. Had Hindus lost completely you would be reading a Kalma today. A defeated population has no God or choice to follow a God no matter they are followers of Hinduism or xyz.

Please research more.

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61865[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Faith is the fuel for anything to work. When you are in battle in the midst of fierce hordes of your enemy, what is the belief that keeps your hand on your sword. Why do people jump into battle fray taking the name of Lord. Please tell me why did Rajputs fight, why did the Shahis fight down to their last ruler, why did the Vijayanagara empire come about because first and foremost we had a strong set of beliefs, which differed from those who sought to subjugate us. Unless there were those set of beliefs which matched in their strength of faith to those held by Muslims, we would not have stood our ground. Even today where do soldiers get their josh, where do they get the patience to keep a timeless vigil. Our religion gives us a stability and assurance. First it was faith and then it was sword. Without the faith the sword would just be a piece of metal, with the faith it become the defender of your honour and traditions.
</div>

Ok. So you are realising now fight is what saves the religion and religion does not save itself.
Good. Yes Hindu kshatriyas always fought to preserve there Dharam and there religion.
Had they not fought there is nothing inherent in the religion that would have saved itself or the population of India from becoming converts to Islam.

Actually James Tod, though a Brit sums it up quite well in his annals and antiuities of ancient rajasthan:

QUOTEWhat nation on earth could have maintained the semblance of civilization, the spirit or the customs of their forefathers, during so many centuries of overwhelming depression, but one of such singular character as the Rajpoot? . . . Rajasthan exhibits the sole example in the history of mankind, of a people withstanding every outrage barbarity could inflict, or human nature sustain, from a foe whose religion (Islam) commands annihilation; and bent to the earth, yet rising buoyant from the pressure, and making calamity a whetstone to courage. . . . Not an iota of their religion or customs have they lost.

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 01:28 AM)You look at Islam and Arabs themselves. In 6th century they were nothing, within a century and half they had conquerod far off Spain. What suddenly changed in a nomadic desert people that they became world conquerors. It was not as if they were non-martial before and suddenly an entire community became brave. It was not as if they found some new military technology hiteherto unfound. The change and the only change which caused all other changes was Islam. What did Islam give to these people. It gave them a strong set of beliefs by which they could live and die. It was faith.
[right][snapback]61872[/snapback][/right]

It was the concept of Jihaad and the proximity of virgins in heaven.

-Digvijay

Bharatvarsh · 12-09-2006, 02:45 AM

QUOTEI will give you an example. I recently learnt that in TamilNadu Brahmins were beaten up during the Dravidian movement of idiots like Periyar etc. The situation became so bad that lot of Brahmins migrated out of TN to places like Maharashtra etc even where the Marathis created trouble for them.

Now replace Brahmins with say rajputs. There is nothing on earth which can compel a rajput to leave his birthplace, if being asked to vacate forcibly without a solid fight, which might continue for generations. Other Kshatriya groups and Sikhs are of the same mold though the intensity may vary.
Again if things are in the blood then where were Rajputs during the British rule?

If indeed it is through blood that you get bravery then why didn't despite having the required blood the Rajputs didn't produce many freedom fighters against the British?

By the same token Bengal has a very poor track record of resistance to Muslims but has an excellent track record against the Brits, so how did that happen, did all Bengalis have new blood infused into their veins so that it pumped up bravery in them suddenly?

As for rajputs never leaving their birth place, sure they did, you ever heard of partition?

I am sure some Rajputs left their homes in Pakistan along with the millions of Sikhs.

You ever heard of the Rajput traitors that gave their daughters to Muslims?

And what did the Sikh loss have anything to do with what I said, the Sikhs were seen as more reliable after they helped the British in 1857 along with the Gurkhas so they were made a privileged group by targeting them heavily for British army recruitment, the same was done later with Punjabi Muslims.

To say that blood gives you bravery is basically saying that it's genetics, that maybe the case but we have no supporting data to back it up, the case of Tamils in Srilanka is an example, the group was considered non martial and bookish until LTTE came up, did the Tamils suddenly get martial blood infused into them through blood trasnfusions which made them pick up arms?

Bharatvarsh · 12-09-2006, 02:52 AM

QUOTEFaith has nothing to do with the survival of Hinduism.
What nonsense, of course faith in dharma has everything to do with our survival.

If a population has no faith or attachment to the religion they are following, they will easily surrender and get converted which is what happened with the Buddhists in the frontiers and in East Bengal.

On the other hand if the population stands by it's religion and culture because it has faith in them then it is harder for the invader to convert people.

Have you heard of the daily beheadings that happened after Banda's capture by the Mughals, not a single Sikh is said to have accepted Islam, all of them preferred death because they had more faith in their Gurus than Islam, if they had no faith, they would have switched religions at the first chance to save themselves.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 12-09-2006, 03:18 AM by Bodhi.)

QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 8 2006, 03:50 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 8 2006, 10:21 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 10:09 AM)and the general public had faith in their religious beliefs.
[right][snapback]61840[/snapback][/right]


This is very true. Islam could not win many converts in India because Indian public was very firm in faith. And who made the public firm in their faith? The Prevailing Hindu social superstructure and countless saints, bhakts, sages and seers who appeared like a rainfall throughout the land of India throughout the middle ages and throughout the spectrum of sects and schools.

</div>

Bodhi you got to be kidding me. Sword on the neck when you belong to the population in the realm of king which lost a war to the jihadi muslim and a dictum to eat beef and loose your jaati cannot be avoided because you belong to the glorious hinduism.

Please grow out of this marxist propaganda that Islam is the next best thing to motherhood and apple pie and the sufi saints spread it in India and that common hindu was just more smart religiously because he was a hindu and hence he did not convert.
This is utter Ape sh1t.
[right][snapback]61870[/snapback][/right]
</div>

What gives a race the inner strength to resist the ongoing invasion, tyranny and suppression? What would have inspired Hindus to fight against Islamism relentlessly for over a thousand years? What was the zeal behind the sword that you talk about?

Can you think about Maratha rise without the catalyst called Sant Ramdas, Tukaram, Gyaneshwar and Namdev? Can you think of Sikh resistance without the spiritual strength of Gurus? Can you think of the rise of Gorkhas without thinking about Guru Gorakshnath? Read about the life of Tulsidas and how he inspired Hindus in North India by giving them Ram's story in common man's language. He so much frustated Akbar that he was arrested and put in jail. (Akbar had to release him, as thisstarted to become a revolting point - Todar and Man Singh were shishya of Tulsidas).

Why did shudra Hindus not convert to Islam readily? What was their attachment to Hindu soceity? Can we really answer this without mentioning Sant Ravidas, Sant Kabirdas and countless other saints who were born within shudras?

Why did Bengal not get completely converted? Were there Rajputs who fought muslims off or was it Chaitanya's influence? Just read about Chaitanya's life. He stirred a Hindu revival in 15th century of Bengal, Orissa and Assam, that became the backbone of resistance against Islamism - both by providing a new religious reassurance for common public, and an inspired zeal to the Hindu Kings. But for Chaitanya, whole of Bengal would have been lost much earlier.

Hindu sword was and is the arm of Hindu resistance, but spiritual movement is its Atma. There would not have been a sustained armed resistance had there not been a strong religious soul keeping it alive. That soul was nourished and nurtured by the Sant-Bhakti revival. Not meaning that armed strength is less important, but strong connection to faith is and has been the root.

12-09-2006, 09:12 AM

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 9 2006, 02:45 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEI will give you an example. I recently learnt that in TamilNadu Brahmins were beaten up during the Dravidian movement of idiots like Periyar etc. The situation became so bad that lot of Brahmins migrated out of TN to places like Maharashtra etc even where the Marathis created trouble for them.

Now replace Brahmins with say rajputs. There is nothing on earth which can compel a rajput to leave his birthplace, if being asked to vacate forcibly without a solid fight, which might continue for generations. Other Kshatriya groups and Sikhs are of the same mold though the intensity may vary.
Again if things are in the blood then where were Rajputs during the British rule?

</div>

Please research about Babu Kunwar Singh. Secondly Brits were even smarter then Akbar. They treated rajasthan and rajputs with kid gloves and the kings there were made to feel as equals and friends.

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 9 2006, 02:45 AM)If indeed it is through blood that you get bravery then why didn't despite having the required blood the Rajputs didn't produce many freedom fighters against the British?


I gave you a partial reason above. Secondly rajputs in other areas fought for freedom. People like Professor Rajendra Singh (RSS Sar Sanchalak) who was teaching at Allahabad University gave shelter to Chandrashekha Azad, Ashfaq and others after Kakori Kand. I will say they are not very well known but there were numerous people. I know people personally who left Congress after the division of the country and fought against Congress in elections and won!.

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 9 2006, 02:45 AM)By the same token Bengal has a very poor track record of resistance to Muslims but has an excellent track record against the Brits, so how did that happen, did all Bengalis have new blood infused into their veins so that it pumped up bravery in them suddenly?

These are not binary things. Bengal if you research there history was full of brave warriors who fought well against Islamics also.

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 9 2006, 02:45 AM)As for rajputs never leaving their birth place, sure they did, you ever heard of partition?

Yeah I have heard of such an event. It is apples and oranges.

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 9 2006, 02:45 AM)I am sure some Rajputs left their homes in Pakistan along with the millions of Sikhs.

Again you have to understand the situation a little bit more. Start with the aftermath of Anglo Sikh wars, figure out what happened to the sikhs and then relate it to what happened during partition.

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 9 2006, 02:45 AM)You ever heard of the Rajput traitors that gave their daughters to Muslims?

I have heard that too and in fact that was the darkest period of rajput history. But that is just a blip in almost the 1000 year fight that rajputs did fight against the Islamic invaders. Do recall that even during Jahangir and ShahJahan's time rajputs were fighting Mughals and ofcourse the conflagaration engulfed entire rajasthan during Aurang's time.

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 9 2006, 02:45 AM)
And what did the Sikh loss have anything to do with what I said,

Everything. Brits and sepoys did not win because of there bravery as was opined but because of the treachery of Sikh generals: couple of whom were Brahmins and another one was a Dogra.

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 9 2006, 02:45 AM) the Sikhs were seen as more reliable after they helped the British in 1857 along with the Gurkhas so they were made a privileged group by targeting them heavily for British army recruitment, the same was done later with Punjabi Muslims.

Yes. Anglo Sikh wars showed them the mettle of Sikhs and they also realised Sikhs could be trusted that is a word once given will not be broken.

Unlike what has happened with muslims even as late as Skardu i.e research how Sher Jung Thapa won MVC.

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 9 2006, 02:45 AM)To say that blood gives you bravery is basically saying that it's genetics, that maybe the case but we have no supporting data to back it up, the case of Tamils in Srilanka is an example, the group was considered non martial and bookish until LTTE came up, did the Tamils suddenly get martial blood infused into them through blood trasnfusions which made them pick up arms?
[right][snapback]61878[/snapback][/right]


There is no doubt good leadership can rouse masses. Prime example is what Gandhiji did in India.

-Digvijay

dhu · (This post was last modified: 12-09-2006, 10:24 PM by dhu.)

ramana
there is a lot of work that needs to be done in extending balagangadhara's account to correct all that the erroneous received wisdom we have been fed. for example he considers the typical marxist lament of man's "alienation" from his labor or the product of his labor to be a result of western normative ethics. essentially this relates the entire conception of feudal and modern time periods as just another variant of the christian normative story. ellul's qualification of the marxist framework with the caveat that the means of production in technical society is no longer subordinated to any conceivable end we may invision thus also becomes modified if we take balagangadhara into the equation. modern (western) man is alienated from technique because of the insufficiencies of normative ethics to come to terms with objects outside the immediate normative human domain (eg technique); the concept of alienation from one's work simply does not make sense in the society that is india ( as anyone who has seen the indian babus at work can confirm).....

12-09-2006, 09:57 AM

Just reposting post no 95 as I think it got lost in the other discussions taking place.

QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 02:07 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ramana @ Dec 7 2006, 08:26 PM)Dhu, I request you to get together with Acharya and write up a more detailed response about Modernity and India. Its very much needed. Thanks in advance.

BTW, Balagangadhara's reply to Jeffery Kirpal

Our problem is as Engineers and technical people we dont know the language of discourse for social scientists and hence even when we have the right reply we cannot articulate it well. We need to develop wrtiting skills.

He writes of the angst we all went thru.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE15. The third charge is that your stance prevents you knowing you are blind. That is to say, why are you blind? Better said, what makes you blind? The answer to this has layers too, and let me peel just a few of them. To do that, I shall have to engage you in your own territory, on your own turf. That is, I want to talk to you about your understanding of your own culture and religion. (Is this not what 'cultural hermeneutics' all about?) Let me, therefore, play the ventriloquist and displace your voice to ask myself a few questions: Is the alienation from our own experience (that I spoke of) any different from what any believer undergoes in the west, when he 'discovers' that God is dead? Is my experience any different from a westerner losing his belief about God and the mystic? Are our travails anything other than the story of 'modernity' as it plays out in India?

[/b]

[right][snapback]61788[/snapback][/right]
</div>
[right][snapback]61827[/snapback][/right]
</div>
I think I'm responding to your thoughts or maybe dhu's or kram's. Really dont know where to start. When a tree is small as this discussion was at the beginning, you can jump from one branch to the other with no dificulty, but when the branches grow up and become trees in their own right, you don't know at which end of the tree you are. Everything is jungle !!

Maybe I can attempt to organise this jungle. This thread was started with the intention of discussing a particular period of our history. But in understanding that
and getting to the depth of it, the scope widened and widened and is almost trying to encompass everything. Right now it has become more philosophical in the sense the Hindu view of the world and sciences vis-a-vis the Western view. This seems to be the region of historiography. I dont know whether my level of knowledge enables me to go along with you to that level.

Indian philosophy focusses on "looking within self" rather than "looking without", though there are schools of thought like Nyaya, Vaisheshika which are not psychological but rather analyze nature. Other schools of philosophy like Uttara Mimansa (or Vedanta), then Buddhist and Jaina are psychological (sorry my terms maybe amateurish, but as ramana put it, I'm an engineer without a good vocab of jargons, so please understand the spirit of what I want to say). The Western Philosophy was more focussed on making sense of nature and bettering the nature around, thus more materialistic. I read somewhere a comparison: If we consider Man, Nature and Society as the three points of a triangle connected to each other, then each of the early philosophies primarily focussed on one of these areas. Indian on the Man (looking within), Western on nature, Chinese (Confucianism) on society and interaction with other men. I accept this is a very simplistic view, but basically trying to understand the difference between Western view and Indian view. Indian philosophy doesn't understand why we need to make a better place to live in when this is all maya. Rather you look within, you will see that what you are is your soul, which is a part of the Supreme Being and then this body, life, world etc become irrelevant. I believe Indians are predisposed towards and excel at abstract thinking mainly because of this.

Now when you say we were always modern, I get an idea where you are coming from. Modern, Ancient are all qualifiers of time. But we believe in a cyclical world, so things like modern, ancient become irrelevant. It is basically a indicator of material progress which is something we consider as maya. ALso the teachings of Upanishads are timeless, they can be applied to any period with any state of material progress. So to that extent we are always modern.

You see if you were to look at things from Indian philosophy point of view, there is no meaning discussing things like "When India became modern". But then there is also no point discussing Sourav Ganguly's return to Indian team or the Asiad performance of India or whether Ash will marry Abhishek B. But guys like me being materialistic, being happy that we are nuke power, being happy when Sensex touches 14000, being sad when Indian cricket and hockey teams lose time and again, being unhappy when we produce only one chap who wins medals at Olympics, also find it interesting to discuss on "When India became modern" from a materialistic point of view. I see only two ways, from Indian philosophy point of view this discussion become totally irrelevant as irrelavant as discussing the politics of history or the outrageous Marxists. The only way to discuss is in a materialistic framework (materialistic in this sense includes social, economical, political, technological etc.). I hope I have chose the terminologies well. <!--emo& Smile

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

12-09-2006, 10:04 AM

<span style='color:red'>Those who claim that bravery and nationalism are traits coded in genes - please explain whether Arjun Singh, VP Singh and Chandrashekhar have got Rajput blood in their veins or something else?</span>

12-09-2006, 10:14 AM

QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 8 2006, 11:42 PM)Secondly rajputs in other areas fought for freedom. People like Professor Rajendra Singh (RSS Sar Sanchalak) who was teaching at Allahabad University gave shelter to Chandrashekha Azad, Ashfaq and others after Kakori Kand. [right][snapback]61890[/snapback][/right]


You got this totally wrong. Sri Chandrashekhar Azad was martyred on February 27, 1931, when Sri Rajju Bhaiya was only 9 years old (He was born on 29 January 1922). The city of Allahabad is the right connection though.

12-09-2006, 01:17 PM

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 9 2006, 03:14 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 8 2006, 03:50 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 8 2006, 10:21 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 10:09 AM)and the general public had faith in their religious beliefs.
[right][snapback]61840[/snapback][/right]


This is very true. Islam could not win many converts in India because Indian public was very firm in faith. And who made the public firm in their faith? The Prevailing Hindu social superstructure and countless saints, bhakts, sages and seers who appeared like a rainfall throughout the land of India throughout the middle ages and throughout the spectrum of sects and schools.

</div>

Bodhi you got to be kidding me. Sword on the neck when you belong to the population in the realm of king which lost a war to the jihadi muslim and a dictum to eat beef and loose your jaati cannot be avoided because you belong to the glorious hinduism.

Please grow out of this marxist propaganda that Islam is the next best thing to motherhood and apple pie and the sufi saints spread it in India and that common hindu was just more smart religiously because he was a hindu and hence he did not convert.
This is utter Ape sh1t.
[right][snapback]61870[/snapback][/right]
</div>

What gives a race the inner strength to resist the ongoing invasion, tyranny and suppression? What would have inspired Hindus to fight against Islamism relentlessly for over a thousand years? What was the zeal behind the sword that you talk about?

</div>

No Zeal. Just doing what your kshatriya dharm says to protect your kingdom and your people and of course your religion. There fathers did it and there father's father and so on i.e you knew what your duty was.

12-09-2006, 01:20 PM

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 9 2006, 03:14 AM)Can you think about Maratha rise without the catalyst called Sant Ramdas, Tukaram, Gyaneshwar and Namdev?Â


Without Shivaji there would have been no Marathas as we know them. A leader (who is born BTW and cannot be manufactured) gave confidence to the marathas that they can move mountains and rest is history.

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 9 2006, 03:14 AM)Can you think of Sikh resistance without the spiritual strength of Gurus?Â

Without Guru Gobind Singh the Sikh Khalsa would not have been as powerful and as succesful as it was. Please research how Guruji transformed the farmers into a fighting force. Secondly Banda Bhadur, by creating an independent sikh kingdom at a stone's throw from Delhi showed the sikhs that they can measure swords with muslims and still come on top.

You can read about Banda Bhadur here:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Banda_Bhadur

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 9 2006, 03:14 AM)Can you think of the rise of Gorkhas without thinking about Guru Gorakshnath?

Would you know when Guru Gorakhnath lived? Do you know the entire make up of Gurkhas?

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 9 2006, 03:14 AM)Â Read about the life of Tulsidas and how he inspired Hindus in North India by giving them Ram's story in common man's language.Â He so much frustated Akbar that he was arrested and put in jail.Â (Akbar had to release him, as thisstarted to become a revolting point - Todar and Man Singh were shishya of Tulsidas).Â

Why did shudra Hindus not convert to Islam readily? What was their attachment to Hindu soceity?Â

Shudras converted in big droves to Islam becaue Jiziya was a tax which accounted for 1.5 months of there salary. It was impossible for them to pay this tax and hence the lowest most on Hindu totem pole had to convert to save there family and themselves from hunger

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 9 2006, 03:14 AM)Can we really answer this without mentioning Sant Ravidas, Sant Kabirdas and countless other saints who were born within shudras?

Yes we can.

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 9 2006, 03:14 AM)Why did Bengal not get completely converted? Were there Rajputs who fought muslims off or was it Chaitanya's influence?Â

Same thing there were hindus fighting muslims all over India and this includes modern Orissa/Bihar/Assam and Bengal i.e what you call Bengal today was an admixture of these modern Indian states.

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 9 2006, 03:14 AM)Just read about Chaitanya's life.Â He stirred a Hindu revival in 15th century of Bengal, Orissa and Assam, that became the backbone of resistance against Islamism - both by providing a new religious reassurance for common public, and an inspired zeal to the Hindu Kings.Â But for Chaitanya, whole of Bengal would have been lost much earlier.

You are wrong. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu tried and succesfully to some extent to convert muslims to the fold of Hinduism.

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 9 2006, 03:14 AM)Hindu sword was and is the arm of Hindu resistance, but spiritual movement is its Atma.Â There would not have been a sustained armed resistance had there not been a strong religious soul keeping it alive.Â That soul was nourished and nurtured by the Sant-Bhakti revival.Â Not meaning that armed strength is less important, but strong connection to faith is and has been the root.
[right][snapback]61881[/snapback][/right]

Nobody is arguing Hinduism. The key is a religion cannot save itself. It needs people to defend it and that is how hinduism was saved in India. i.e there was no magic. It was grit and courage of our ancestors on account of whom we are all hindus today.

-Digvijay

12-09-2006, 01:21 PM

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 9 2006, 10:04 AM)<span style='color:red'>Those who claim that bravery and nationalism are traits coded in genes - please explain whether Arjun Singh, VP Singh and Chandrashekhar have got Rajput blood in their veins or something else?</span>
[right][snapback]61893[/snapback][/right]


Black sheep in every community/caste etc. These are not rajputs in my book. You can also add Amar Singh to this list.

-Digvijay

12-09-2006, 01:26 PM

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 9 2006, 10:14 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 8 2006, 11:42 PM)Secondly rajputs in other areas fought for freedom. People like Professor Rajendra Singh (RSS Sar Sanchalak) who was teaching at Allahabad University gave shelter to Chandrashekha Azad, Ashfaq and others after Kakori Kand. [right][snapback]61890[/snapback][/right]


You got this totally wrong. Sri Chandrashekhar Azad was martyred on February 27, 1931, when Sri Rajju Bhaiya was only 9 years old (He was born on 29 January 1922). The city of Allahabad is the right connection though.
[right][snapback]61894[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Must be a mistake but I will check on it and get back to you. Rajju Bhaiya's youngest brother retired at 58 in mid 80's and he was about 10 years younger then the professor.

Also rajput farmers in UP do not record the birth years very well as these people are mostly Arya Samajis and do not get into classical horoscope etc.

So at the time of school joining some random date gets put which at the time of class 10th is changed again on a whim.

-Digvijay

ramana · 12-09-2006, 08:54 PM

This thread is about when did Modern ideas take hold in India. Why are we reduced to discussing the discredited martial races theory?

Why dont you tell us what exactly is your point of view and not interject in every thread of how one clan or the other is superior to the rest of Indians? And folks why are you indulging the poster? Isnt this the INDIA forum and Not CLAN forum?

12-09-2006, 08:58 PM

QUOTEThose who claim that bravery and nationalism are traits coded in genes - please explain whether Arjun Singh, VP Singh and Chandrashekhar have got Rajput blood in their veins or something else? 
They all are certified b@st@rd.

Let's go back to thread topic or I will be forced to close this thread. Consider this last warning.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?