thanks to the dip$#!t commie govt that the bangladesh refugee problem (and b4 that the pom stronghold in bengal + division of bengal) spawned, no one seems to have a clue about the history of bengal.
i have travelled all over india, and thought that bengal started existing since calcutta... only to learn that plutarch wasnt unaware of the region and that it hasnt gone un-noticed in the mahabharat either (ved vyas being born in orissa could have something to do with it)
anyway here's a site that gave me something to smile about.
11-27-2005, 09:46 PM (This post was last modified: 11-27-2005, 09:46 PM by ravish.)
Not much is known about the history of Kolkata of the pre British period. It is only after the arrival of the British in India that the present city of Kolkata came into existance around Fort William.It is said that a British merchant Job Charnok was the person who developed Kolkata. Incidentally, he married a Hindu widow whom he had rescued from becoming Sati.
I find Bengal as the true melting pot of all the races, invaders and the aborigins of India. You could trace back the genes of a persi to a kaala in a bengali's blood. I wonder if thats why nobody took the painstaking effort to write a history on it.
The same is the case with the population of entire Northern India. It is nothing special of Bengal. You may find Bengal on the forefront for the simple reason that the British started their empire building efforts from Bengal. Therefore, the Bengali people were amongst the first to be educated in English and given employment by the East India Company. The Bengali people without understanding the consequences, lined up witht ehBiritish and provided immense help in the establishment of the British Rule in India. The Bengal Native Army of the East India Company , which made several expeditions right upto Kabul was mostly manned by the soldiers drawn from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. However, the logistic staff was provided by Bengal and so they came to be know as Babus.
In respect of intermixing of races, it is the same all over Northern India. Only in the South at some places there may be descendents of pure Indian origin.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ravish+Nov 27 2005, 09:46 PM-->QUOTE(Ravish @ Nov 27 2005, 09:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Not much is known about the history of Kolkata of the pre British period. It is only after the arrival of the British in India that the present city of Kolkata came into existance around Fort William.It is said that a British merchant Job Charnok was the person who developed Kolkata. Incidentally, he married a Hindu widow whom he had rescued from becoming Sati.
[right][snapback]42092[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the name kolkata comes from "koli-kata" which was one of the 3 villages on the banks of the ganges (hoogly), the other 2 being Gobindopur and Shutanuti.
Some say that the name comes from Kalighat (of temple fame. this temple is located on one of the 24-ish places where kali's ashes fell or something similar, according to Puranic legend).
Thats not true. the name comes from Kolikata village, which existed from not just before Charnok, but before England (3rd century a.d. is when the angles and saxons went to settle in the island called britain) as well.
unless ofcourse, the village name Kolilkata comes from Kalighat.
and though charnok may have married an indian, the "widow saved from sati" is not something i would believe very easily, till i have genuine proof. This could just be another pom canard to make charnok appear as some sort of knight in shinning armour.
<!--QuoteBegin-green_trees+Nov 27 2005, 11:53 PM-->QUOTE(green_trees @ Nov 27 2005, 11:53 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I find Bengal as the true melting pot of all the races, invaders and the aborigins of India. You could trace back the genes of a persi to a kaala in a bengali's blood. I wonder if thats why nobody took the painstaking effort to write a history on it.
[right][snapback]42094[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
read R.C.Mojumdar's "history of bengal".
reading the links in the o.p would tell you something about bengal as it was 2500 years ago.
i always knew that peninsular states and even kalinga/orissa had trade relations with the rest of the world. until i learnt that roman coins and other influences have found in the terracota hotbed of Chandraketugarh.
the bengali word for fair/gora is "phorsha" ... a corrupt word meaninng "of the complexion of a farsi".
also eastern india, be it bengal or eastern coastal india, is where the gonds and other tribal people entered india from (by land in bengal and by sea in peninsula). those guys are related to khemyrs (austonesians) and austroloids.
In the early 20th century, there used to be a saying that ' what Bengal thinks today, India thinks tomorrow' .
It was the heat of Bengali freedom movement which forced British to move the capital of India from Calcutta to Delhi.
Bengal single handedly produced most dynamic nationalistic leaders in India, a veritable army in itself.
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was the most underestimated national leader in India who was never liked by Congress.
It is sad to see Bengal struggling and trying to catch up with the other states in India.
In fact, socio/religious/nationalistic leaders like Sri RamaKrishna, Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo prepared the ground which accelerated India's freedom movement.
However, there seems to be a sublte movement (by intelligentsia) in Bengal to give more prominence to Bengali as a separate identity thereby alligning closer with Bangladesh instead of nationalistic fervor which has weaned away over the last 50 years.
<!--QuoteBegin-Aryawan+Nov 28 2005, 09:49 AM-->QUOTE(Aryawan @ Nov 28 2005, 09:49 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the early 20th century, there used to be a saying that ' what Bengal thinks today, India thinks tomorrow' .
It was the heat of Bengali freedom movement which forced British to move the capital of India from Calcutta to Delhi.
Bengal single handedly produced most dynamic nationalistic leaders in India, a veritable army in itself.
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was the most underestimated national leader in India who was never liked by Congress.
It is sad to see Bengal struggling and trying to catch up with the other states in India.
In fact, socio/religious/nationalistic leaders like Sri RamaKrishna, Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo prepared the ground which accelerated India's freedom movement.
However, there seems to be a sublte movement (by intelligentsia) in Bengal to give more prominence to Bengali as a separate identity thereby alligning closer with Bangladesh instead of nationalistic fervor which has weaned away over the last 50 years.
Correct me if I am wrong!
[right][snapback]42167[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the "wrong" bit is the last paragraph.
we hate bangladeshis. they are the reason that 2/3 of our land went out of our hands.
what marxists say should not be taken as the voice of a people. take prakash and brinda karat for example. is that how marathis's think? in a leftist way ??
what you are talking of, happens in another part of india, where they have joint sports events and other crap with a certain millitant religion.
Ben Ami wants proof to the native wife of Job Charnok. She has her tomb along with that of her children and husband in a well known grave yard of Kolkata.The full story is as follows.
Job Charnok was sailing by in the Ganga on his way from Buxar ( a important trading station of the time) to Kolkata via Bhagalpur.Early in the morning, at Mahendru Ghat in Patna a young widow was asked to take her last bath before jumping on the funaral pyre of her elderly husband who had died the previous night.She was a good swimmer and she swam to the boat of the Englishman, who rescued her and took her to Kolkata.Before that there was an exchange of fire between the bodyguards of the English merchant and a few of the fellows who wanted the sati to be returned. Actually, more authentic details will be available from those who are presently engaged in finding out the exact date of birth of Kolkata.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ravish+Nov 28 2005, 12:13 AM-->QUOTE(Ravish @ Nov 28 2005, 12:13 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->You may find Bengal on the forefront for the simple reason that the British started their empire building efforts from Bengal. Therefore, the Bengali people were amongst the first to be educated in English and given employment by the East India Company.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
which is why they produced ram mohan roys, surendranath bannerjees, aurobindos, bose, p.c.mahalonobis and tagores ??
<!--QuoteBegin-Ravish+Nov 28 2005, 12:13 AM-->QUOTE(Ravish @ Nov 28 2005, 12:13 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> The Bengali people without understanding the consequences, lined up witht ehBiritish and provided immense help in the establishment of the British Rule in India. The Bengal Native Army of the East India Company , which made several expeditions right upto Kabul was mostly manned by the soldiers drawn from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. However, the logistic staff was provided by Bengal and so they came to be know as Babus.
[right][snapback]42098[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and the scindhia help to the brits to hammer the revolt of 1857 ??
what about the wining and dining and polo playing kings and the non-follwers of sarvarkar, bipin pal and bose ??
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->which is why they produced ram mohan roys, surendranath bannerjees, aurobindos, bose, p.c.mahalonobis and tagores ??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ram Moham Roy was a man infatuated with xtianity and Islam and monotheism, that is why after him his Brahmo Samaj under Keshab Chandra Sen became xtian for all practical purposes.
ram mohon roy was the father of modern india. way way ahead of his time.
one of the major reasons why hinduism survived under the missionary onslaught and hindus didnt get enamoured with x-ianity was because some people very wisely managed to package hinduism on the lines with which the secondary abrahamic types couldnt find fault with.
their main targets of hinduism was the caste system, idol worship and polytheirsm.
so people pointed out that hinduism was monotheistic as well as polytheistic - that it was pantheistic (or some other term, i forgot).
similarly they pointed out that the idol was just like an embassy.
if you think that the indian embassy in japan is india - then its idolatory.
if you think it represents india - then thats not idolatory thats iconatory.
they also pointed out that hinduism and hindu society had changed considerably from the hinduism of the veds - which have mention of gods but not idols or idol worshipping.
by packaging hinduism thus, they ensured that hindus would not feel as if their religion has some sort of defects, at least when looked at from an abrahamic viewpoint.
as for the sort of social justice (abolition of sati, education of women - sarojni chatterjee and toru dutt etc - and widow remarriage etc) that ram mohon roy brought about, it hardly needs anyone's certificate.
neither kesab chandra sen nor ram mohon roy became X-ian.
both manage to subtly incorporate the "+ves" of christianity into hinduism and pacakage hinduism in such a way that hindus didnt feel enamoured with christianity. read what koenraad elst has to say about this tactical move.
like i said, and koenraad elst and even bal thakeray (!!!!) had said, we should be cautious about how non-western we should be. for a bit much of it, would mean that we keep the electric bulb out of indian also !!
hinduism, with the DEEP caste system as it used to be back than at least (and continues to be in up and bihar), was anything but democratic, even less egalitarian.
the weaknesses of hinduism are preciselyt the strengths of islam and christianity, which is why people are attracted to it. for all muslims pray together and 'dalit muslims" are not asked to keep away. for all christians can read the scriptures and go for education and not just the brahmins amongst them.
ram mohon roy, apart from being the father of modern india, was also one of the fathers of the bengal renaissance.
ram mohon roy was the father of modern india. way way ahead of his time.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to you he is but not according to all Hindus.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->neither kesab chandra sen nor ram mohon roy became X-ian.
both manage to subtly incorporate the "+ves" of christianity into hinduism and pacakage hinduism in such a way that hindus didnt feel enamoured with christianity. read what koenraad elst has to say about this tactical move.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets see what happened to Brahmo Samaj after Ram Mohan Roy's death under the leadership of Keshab Chandra Sen:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->By the time he reached Calcutta, the Brahmo Samaj had split into two. A minority consisting of those who wanted to retain their. Hindu identity had remained with the Adi Brahmo Samaj led by Debendra Nath Tagore and Rajnarayan Bose. The majority had walked away with Keshub Chunder Sen who had formed his Church of the New Dispensation (NababidhAna) and started dreaming of becoming the prophet of a new world religion. Dayananda saw with his own eyes how infatuation with Christ had reduced Keshub Chunder to a sanctimonious humbug and turned him into a rootless cosmopolitan. He also witnessed how Debendra Nath Tagore was finding it difficult to retrieve the ground lost when the Adi Brahmo Samaj had repudiated the fundamental tenets of Hinduism - the authority of the Vedas, VarNAshrama-dharma, the doctrine of rebirth, etc. The only consolation he found in Calcutta was a lecture, The Superiority of Hinduism, which Rajnarayan Bose had delivered earlier and a copy of which was presented to him.
Dayananda wrote a critique of Brahmoism soon after he returned from Calcutta. It was incorporated in Chapter XI of his SatyArthaprakAsha which was first published from Varanasi in the beginning of 1875. The Brahmos, he wrote, have very little love of their own country left in them. Far from taking pride in their country and their ancestors, they find fault with both. They praise Christians and Englishmen in their public speeches while they do not even mention the rishis of old. They proclaim that since creation and till today, no wise man has been born outside the British fold. The people of Aryavarta have always been idiotic, according to them. They believe that Hindus have never made any progress. Far from honouring the Vedas, they never hesitate in denouncing those venerable Shastras. The book which describes the tenets of Brahmoism has place for Moses, Jesus and Muhammad who are praised as great saints, but it has no place for any ancient rishi, howsoever great. They denounce Hindu society for its division in castes, but they never notice the racial consciousness which runs deep in European society. They claim that their search is only for truth, whether it is found in the Bible or the Quran, but they manage to miss the truth which is in their own Vedic heritage. They are running after Jesus without knowing what their own rishis have bequeathed to them. They discard the sacred thread as if it were heavier than the foreign liveries they love to wear. In the process, they have become beggars in their own home and can do no good either to themselves or to those among whom they live. http://voiceofdharma.com/books/hhce/Ch11.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let us see what Arun Shourie has to say about Keshab:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Similarly, while Ram Mohan Roy is mentioned, while Keshab Chandra Sen -- in whom Max Muller had seen such hope of Christianizing India -- is mentioned, while Devendra Nath Tagore is mentioned in this "History of Civilization", Bankim Chandra is not mentioned!
http://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/art...980901.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since you are always talking about the poms it may interest you to know that your great Keshab Chandra Sen was a pucca loyalist who wanted British rule to flourish in India (this after having seen what was done to Bengal under the British), the following is from Elst:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indian loyalists justified the British presence on the same grounds, e.g. Keshab Chandra Sen, leader of the reformist movement Brahmo Samaj (mid-19th century), welcomed the British advent as a reunion with his Aryan cousins: âIn the advent of the English nation in India we see a reunion of parted cousins, the descendants of two different families of the ancient Aryan raceâ
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->like i said, and koenraad elst and even bal thakeray (!!!!) had said, we should be cautious about how non-western we should be. for a bit much of it, would mean that we keep the electric bulb out of indian also !!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same Elst repeatedly points out how the so called reform movements internalised every missionary myth and then tried to build up Hinduism as monotheist when it certainly wasnt. The following is what Elst has to say:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus, the Christian and Muslim emphasis on monotheism and condemnation of polytheism has been interioÂrized by Hindu reform movements even as the latter were trying to counter Christian power in India. Instead of defending Hindu polytheism against the missionary vilificaÂtion of "idolatry", the Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj movements claimed that monotheism was indeed right and polytheism was indeed wrong, but that Hinduism, properly understood, is more monotheist that Christianity and Islam. As the historian Shrikant Talageri has remarked, this is as if an Indian were to say: "The colonial racists were correct in assuming the superiorÂity of white skins over brown skins, but Indians have whiter skins than Europeans." http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/book.../section10.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->hinduism, with the DEEP caste system as it used to be back than at least (and continues to be in up and bihar), was anything but democratic, even less egalitarian.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly no religion is egalitarian, at that time in your so called egalitarian England there were tremendous class differences and great poverty among lower classes (and white xtians were practicing slavery and were justifying it using the Bible), atleast in India all castes were allowed to educate themselves as pointed out in Dharampals writings, it is time Hindus stop self hating themselves and their religion.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the weaknesses of hinduism are preciselyt the strengths of islam and christianity, which is why people are attracted to it. for all muslims pray together and 'dalit muslims" are not asked to keep away. for all christians can read the scriptures and go for education and not just the brahmins amongst them.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You read too many missionary websites it seems, your dalit saviour Ambedkar pointed out the contempt with which low caste Muslims were treated, Dalit Christians have separate burial grounds and churches to this day and what is preventing non Brahmins from reading the scriptures in this day, there are several english translations available of scriptures and anyone can read them, if they are too lazy to read then why blame Brahmins, if Brahmins can open their own schools for teaching Vedas then why can't other castes do the same instead of blaming Brahmins (exactly the approach Sri Narayan Guru tried successfully in Kerala).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->ram mohon roy, apart from being the father of modern india, was also one of the fathers of the bengal renaissance. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For you he maybe but to me he is a half xtianised Hindu just like Gandhi was.
I HAVENT QUITE WORKED OUT HOW THE QUOTING THING WORKS SO I AM GOING TO REPLY IN CAPS JUST TO AVOID CONFUSION
Quote: not true.
ram mohon roy was the father of modern india. way way ahead of his time
According to you he is but not according to all Hindus.
SO HOW COME ALL HINDUS SEND THEIR DAUGHTERS TO STUDY AND DONT MARRY THEM OFF AT 14 AND WIDOWS DONT END UP SATI-FIED.
LEARN TO GIVE CREDIT WHERE ITS DUE INSTEAD OF WITCH-HUNTING.
Quote:neither kesab chandra sen nor ram mohon roy became X-ian.
both manage to subtly incorporate the "+ves" of christianity into hinduism and pacakage hinduism in such a way that hindus didnt feel enamoured with christianity. read what koenraad elst has to say about this tactical move.
Lets see what happened to Brahmo Samaj after Ram Mohan Roy's death under the leadership of Keshab Chandra Sen:
Quote: By the time he reached Calcutta, the Brahmo Samaj had split into two. A minority consisting of those who wanted to retain their. Hindu identity had remained with the Adi Brahmo Samaj led by Debendra Nath Tagore and Rajnarayan Bose. The majority had walked away with Keshub Chunder Sen who had formed his Church of the New Dispensation (NababidhAna) and started dreaming of becoming the prophet of a new world religion. Dayananda saw with his own eyes how infatuation with Christ had reduced Keshub Chunder to a sanctimonious humbug and turned him into a rootless cosmopolitan. He also witnessed how Debendra Nath Tagore was finding it difficult to retrieve the ground lost when the Adi Brahmo Samaj had repudiated the fundamental tenets of Hinduism - the authority of the Vedas, VarNAshrama-dharma, the doctrine of rebirth, etc. The only consolation he found in Calcutta was a lecture, The Superiority of Hinduism, which Rajnarayan Bose had delivered earlier and a copy of which was presented to him.
HMM OK. I WAS TALKING ABOUT RAM MOHON ROY.
BUT EVEN THEN, KESAB CHANDRA SEN HAD MORE TO HIM THE HIS MYOPIC LOVE AND INFATUATION FOR CHRISTIANITY.
FINALLY ITS CHANDRA AND NOT CHUNDER, JUST LIKE ITS INDRA AND NOT INDER.
STOP CORRUPTING SANSKRIT.
Quote:Dayananda wrote a critique of Brahmoism soon after he returned from Calcutta. It was incorporated in Chapter XI of his SatyArthaprakAsha which was first published from Varanasi in the beginning of 1875. The Brahmos, he wrote, have very little love of their own country left in them. Far from taking pride in their country and their ancestors, they find fault with both. They praise Christians and Englishmen in their public speeches while they do not even mention the rishis of old. They proclaim that since creation and till today, no wise man has been born outside the British fold. The people of Aryavarta have always been idiotic, according to them. They believe that Hindus have never made any progress. Far from honouring the Vedas, they never hesitate in denouncing those venerable Shastras. The book which describes the tenets of Brahmoism has place for Moses, Jesus and Muhammad who are praised as great saints, but it has no place for any ancient rishi, howsoever great. They denounce Hindu society for its division in castes, but they never notice the racial consciousness which runs deep in European society. They claim that their search is only for truth, whether it is found in the Bible or the Quran, but they manage to miss the truth which is in their own Vedic heritage. They are running after Jesus without knowing what their own rishis have bequeathed to them. They discard the sacred thread as if it were heavier than the foreign liveries they love to wear. In the process, they have become beggars in their own home and can do no good either to themselves or to those among whom they live.
BRAHMO-ISM NEED NOT BE RIGHT.
THE POINT IS THAT IT ACTED AS A CHECK AGAINST THE APPEAL OF CHRISTIANITY.
AND ALSO SOME OF THE FINER POINTS OF HINDUISM AS SPECIFIED IN THE VEDAS WERE REVIVED WHILE CRAPPIER PARTS LIKE SUPERSTITION AND IDOL WORSHIP (SOME BLACK STONE IS FOUND IN SOME CORNER - NEXT DAY IT BECOMES A TEMPLE. THAT KIND OF CRAP) WAS WEEDED OUT.
AND HAVING MET MANY BRAHMOS I DONT AGREE WITH WHAT DAYANAND HAS TO SAY.
IF ANYTHING THE BRAHMOS DERIVE THEIR RELIGION FROM THE VEDS AND ONLY THAT. BRAHMO SAMAJ WAS AN ATTEMPT TO REVIVE VEDIC HINDUISM BY CHUCKING ALL RITUALS AND ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY NEGATE THE LURE OF THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS.
THAT THE PEOPLE OF BENGAL NEVER FOUND MUCH INTEREST IN ACCEPTING XIANITY AS OPPOSED TO SOME OTHER PARTS OF INDIA, AND THAT THE LEVEL OF SOCIAL JUSTICE IN BENGAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN VERY HIGH EVER SINCE THE BRAHMO SAMAJ, VINDICATES THAT THE INTENTIONS OF THE SAMAJ WAS SUCCESSFUL.
DAYANAD PROLLY ONLY SAW THE MEANS ADOPTED AND NOT THE ENDS THAT THEY TRIED TO ACHIEVE.
WELL TREES ARE KNOWN BY THEUR FRUITS. (READ ENDS)
Quote:http://voiceofdharma.com/books/hhce/Ch11.htm
Let us see what Arun Shourie has to say about Keshab:
Similarly, while Ram Mohan Roy is mentioned, while Keshab Chandra Sen -- in whom Max Muller had seen such hope of Christianizing India -- is mentioned, while Devendra Nath Tagore is mentioned in this "History of Civilization", Bankim Chandra is not mentioned!
I FAIL TO SEE HOW IT UNDERMINES KESAB CHANDRA SEN THAT MAX MULLER HAD A LOT OF EXPECTATION FROM HIM.
JUST HIS LUCK.
IF THIS ALLEGATION WERE TRUE BENGAL WOULD HAVE HAD A X-IAN POPULATION LIKE THAT OF TAMIL NADU, NAGALAND OR KERELA.
BUT PRETTY MUCH THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE - COS THE BRAHMO SAMAJ MANAGED TO MAKE HINDUS AWARE OF THE BETTER ASPECTS OF HINDUISM WHILEST ENCOURAGING THEM TO CHUCH THE CORRUPTIONS.
Quote:http://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/art...980901.htm
Since you are always talking about the poms it may interest you to know that your great Keshab Chandra Sen was a pucca loyalist who wanted British rule to flourish in India (this after having seen what was done to Bengal under the British), the following is from Elst:
Indian loyalists justified the British presence on the same grounds, e.g. Keshab Chandra Sen, leader of the reformist movement Brahmo Samaj (mid-19th century), welcomed the British advent as a reunion with his Aryan cousins: âIn the advent of the English nation in India we see a reunion of parted cousins, the descendants of two different families of the ancient Aryan raceâ
HE WAS RIGHT THOUGH. IN A WAY HE DIDNT EVEN SUSPECT.
OUT OF INDIA THEORY.
AND YES KESHAB CHANDRA SEN WAS NOT QUITE A BOSE. NOR WERE VERY MANY OTHER INDIANS.
Quote:like i said, and koenraad elst and even bal thakeray (!!!!) had said, we should be cautious about how non-western we should be. for a bit much of it, would mean that we keep the electric bulb out of indian also !!:
The same Elst repeatedly points out how the so called reform movements internalised every missionary myth and then tried to build up Hinduism as monotheist when it certainly wasnt. The following is what Elst has to say:
IT WASNT. BUT THIS PACKAGING TOOK AWAY THE LURE OF MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION.
Quote:Thus, the Christian and Muslim emphasis on monotheism and condemnation of polytheism has been interioÂrized by Hindu reform movements even as the latter were trying to counter Christian power in India.
YES.
IT WAS TO COUNTER THE CHRISTIAN POWER IN INDIA THAT THE PACKAGING WAS DONE THUS.
Instead of defending Hindu polytheism against the missionary vilificaÂtion of "idolatry", the Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj movements claimed that monotheism was indeed right and polytheism was indeed wrong, but that Hinduism, properly understood, is more monotheist that Christianity and Islam.
A BRILLIANT CON JOB !!
TRYING THE UPHILL ROUTE OF EXPLAINING THAT POLYTHEISM IS RIGHT OR MONOTHEISM ISNT RIGHT PER SE (NEITHER IS RIGHT.. COS WE DONT KNOW FOR SURE) WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT. MAY LOOK EASY NOW BUT WHEN YOUR EDUCATION SYSTEM AND THE REINS OF YOUR COUNTRY ARE WITH ANOTHER PEOPLE, ITS VERY TOUGH.
As the historian Shrikant Talageri has remarked, this is as if an Indian were to say: "The colonial racists were correct in assuming the superiorÂity of white skins over brown skins, but Indians have whiter skins than Europeans."
YES. THE ONES WHO TRADE GIFTS WITH DUKES AND PLAY POLO WITH THEM CERTAINLY DO.
AND NOT JUST INDIANS, WHENEVER SOMEONE MANAGES TO MAKE THE NEXT HIGHER MARK, HE/SHE GETS A SUPERIORITY COMPLEX.
WE SEE IT REGULARLY AMONGST INDIANS WHO GO TO USA OR THE WEST. THEY GROW WINGS AND THINK THEY ARE A SPECIAL SOMETHING, PROLLY MORE THAN AN AMERICAN WOULD TOO.
Quote:http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/book.../section10.html
hinduism, with the DEEP caste system as it used to be back than at least (and continues to be in up and bihar), was anything but democratic, even less egalitarian.
Firstly no religion is egalitarian,
WHEN I SAY A RELIGION IS EGALITARIAN, I MEAN THAT THE RELIGION DOES NOT HAVE BETTER FOLLOWERS AND LESSER FOLLOWERS (EG BRAHMINS AND S.C.'s).
I CERTAINLY DONT MEAN TO SAY THE ENTIRE CORPUS OF FOLLOWERS OF THAT RELIGION ARE AT THE SAME SOCIO-ECONOMIC LEVEL !!!
STOP MISCONSTRUING ME.
Quote:at that time in your
WHERE DID YOU GET THE "YOUR" ???
Quote: so called egalitarian England
AND WHEE DID YOU GET THIS TOO ??
Quote:there were tremendous class differences and great poverty among lower classes (and white xtians were practicing slavery and were justifying it using the Bible),
YES. BUT CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT HAVE LOWER CHRISTIANS AND HIGHER.
SLAVERY WAS COS OF SKIN COLOUR DIFFERENCE.
NONE OF THE ABRAHAMIC SOCIETIES ARE DIVIDED BY BIRTH.
Quote:atleast in India all castes were allowed to educate themselves as pointed out in Dharampals writings, it is time Hindus stop self hating themselves and their religion.
VERY PROPHETIC !!
WHAT MAKES YOU SURMISE THAT I HATE IT THAT I AM HINDU AND THAT I HATE HINDUISM ??
Quote:the weaknesses of hinduism are preciselyt the strengths of islam and christianity, which is why people are attracted to it. for all muslims pray together and 'dalit muslims" are not asked to keep away. for all christians can read the scriptures and go for education and not just the brahmins amongst them.
You read too many missionary websites it seems, your dalit saviour Ambedkar pointed out the contempt with which low caste Muslims were treated, Dalit Christians have separate burial grounds and churches to this day and what is preventing non Brahmins from reading the scriptures in this day, there are several english translations available of scriptures and anyone can read them, if they are too lazy to read then why blame Brahmins, if Brahmins can open their own schools for teaching Vedas then why can't other castes do the same instead of blaming Brahmins (exactly the approach Sri Narayan Guru tried successfully in Kerala).
THE OTHER DAY I ASKED YOU IF YOU WERE VIRGIN TO THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND TODAY I THINK I GOT THE ANSWER.
ITS ONE THING TO POINT OUT THAT LOWER CASTRE CONEVERTS INTO ISLAM AND x-IANITY ARE MISTREATED - AND QUITE ANOTHER TO PROVE THAT THEIR BOOKS SAY THEY SHOULD SEGREGATE.
BESIDES INDIA IS THE ONLY COUNTRY WHERE THIS SEGREGATION TAKES PLACE AMONGST MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS - SO I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS IS AN ASPECT THEY LEARNT FROM HINDUS AND DOESNT EXIST IN THEIR RELIGIONS PER SE'.
Quote:ram mohon roy, apart from being the father of modern india, was also one of the fathers of the bengal renaissance.
For you he maybe but to me he is a half xtianised Hindu just like Gandhi was.
WELL THEN STOP SENDING YOUR DAUGHTER TO SCHOOL, MARRY YOUR SIS AT 13 AND REMEMBER THE SATI BIT TOO WHEN THE TIME FOR THAT COMES.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->what is preventing non Brahmins from reading the scriptures in this day, there are several english translations available of scriptures and anyone can read them, if they are too lazy to read then why blame Brahmins, if Brahmins can open their own schools for teaching Vedas then why can't other castes do the same instead of blaming Brahmins (exactly the approach Sri Narayan Guru tried successfully in Kerala).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As a matter of fact...a community from Sourashtra region of Gujarat has migrated to Southern India during the Vijaya nagar empire period (possibly to escape islamic onslaught). And they have their own Veda pada sala in Madurai (Tamil nadu) for long time.
These things happen everywhere. They are not publicized.
Well, blaming brahmins for all ills of the society is a fashion.
Benami, you are too quick to jump the gun.. This debate belongs to Religion forum and not the Bengal History forum. If interested we can take it up there.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->SO HOW COME ALL HINDUS SEND THEIR DAUGHTERS TO STUDY AND DONT MARRY THEM OFF AT 14 AND WIDOWS DONT END UP SATI-FIED.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because education for women is integral to Hinduism which exhalts Saraswathi as the Goddess of Learning. The Dharma Shastras, and also the Kamasutra talks about educating women. You can see from Artha Shastra that women were employed in government services and were well educated.
Hindus donât send their girls to be "Sati-fied" (if that's a word) because the Islamic Sword is not as scathing as it used to be. The plundering and slave trade have stopped. Thus Sati (which is not a hindu custom at all, and not found in Manu Smrithi or Artha Shastra) is discarded. Have you ever heard of Sati system in South India? Or in places where Islamic hordes did not venture?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->HMM OK. I WAS TALKING ABOUT RAM MOHON ROY.
BUT EVEN THEN, KESAB CHANDRA SEN HAD MORE TO HIM THE HIS MYOPIC LOVE AND INFATUATION FOR CHRISTIANITY.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would like to know what was more to Keshab Chandra than his love for Xtianity.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->AND ALSO SOME OF THE FINER POINTS OF HINDUISM AS SPECIFIED IN THE VEDAS WERE REVIVED WHILE CRAPPIER PARTS LIKE SUPERSTITION AND IDOL WORSHIP (SOME BLACK STONE IS FOUND IN SOME CORNER - NEXT DAY IT BECOMES A TEMPLE. THAT KIND OF CRAP) WAS WEEDED OUT.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting that you give a certificate of goodness and crappiness for the content of the Vedas. How much Vedic knowledge do you have that we can start a debate on the vedic injunctions. Which Vedas are you quoting in the example of Idol Worships, and what proof do you have that there are superstitions in the Vedas ?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->AND HAVING MET MANY BRAHMOS I DONT AGREE WITH WHAT DAYANAND HAS TO SAY.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If meeting alone is a criteria, then perhaps you should meet more Arya Samajis. This would tilt the balance in AryaSamaj's favour. How many Arya Samajis have you met and discussed with so far ?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->THAT THE PEOPLE OF BENGAL NEVER FOUND MUCH INTEREST IN ACCEPTING XIANITY AS OPPOSED TO SOME OTHER PARTS OF INDIA, AND THAT THE LEVEL OF SOCIAL JUSTICE IN BENGAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN VERY HIGH EVER SINCE THE BRAHMO SAMAJ, VINDICATES THAT THE INTENTIONS OF THE SAMAJ WAS SUCCESSFUL.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If xtianity had no lure or interest in bengal, then what was the need to adopt an xtian outlook of the "Veds" as you call them?
Give me ONE point, I am not asking you for two or ten, give me ONE valid point that Xtianity or Islam has which is UNIQUE *and* Superior to Sanathana Dharma. Just ONE. (I have asked many ppl this question, including missionaries and Jehova's witnesses, but could not get a proper answer.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->BUT PRETTY MUCH THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE - COS THE BRAHMO SAMAJ MANAGED TO MAKE HINDUS AWARE OF THE BETTER ASPECTS OF HINDUISM WHILEST ENCOURAGING THEM TO CHUCH THE CORRUPTIONS.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought it was Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Gauranga who prevented the seepage.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->HE WAS RIGHT THOUGH. IN A WAY HE DIDNT EVEN SUSPECT.OUT OF INDIA THEORY.
AND YES KESHAB CHANDRA SEN WAS NOT QUITE A BOSE. NOR WERE VERY MANY OTHER INDIANS.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that makes him great?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->YES. BUT CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT HAVE LOWER CHRISTIANS AND HIGHER.
SLAVERY WAS COS OF SKIN COLOUR DIFFERENCE.
NONE OF THE ABRAHAMIC SOCIETIES ARE DIVIDED BY BIRTH.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps you have not read the bible. Read Deuteronomy and then post your reply.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->ITS ONE THING TO POINT OUT THAT LOWER CASTRE CONEVERTS INTO ISLAM AND x-IANITY ARE MISTREATED - AND QUITE ANOTHER TO PROVE THAT THEIR BOOKS SAY THEY SHOULD SEGREGATE.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The joke is on the converts. In Christian mythology, God tells Abraham that he has a covenant only with Abraham and his seed and his slaves that he purchased. No one other than the children of Israel are entitled to Heaven. Jesus too confirms that. I advise you to read the bible.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->BESIDES INDIA IS THE ONLY COUNTRY WHERE THIS SEGREGATION TAKES PLACE AMONGST MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS - SO I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS IS AN ASPECT THEY LEARNT FROM HINDUS AND DOESNT EXIST IN THEIR RELIGIONS PER SE'.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the Quran - a Manual on Jehad. Understand Islam thru Hadiths.
Benami, you are too quick to jump the gun.. This debate belongs to Religion forum and not the Bengal History forum. If interested we can take it up there.
I AM NOT. I STARTED A HISTORY-OF-BENGAL FORUM AND WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT ONLY TILL IT SPIRALED INTO A WITCH HUNT THREAD. NEVER DID <b>I</b> INTEND THIS THREAD TO DISCUSS HINDUISM OR BRAHMO SAMAJ.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->SO HOW COME ALL HINDUS SEND THEIR DAUGHTERS TO STUDY AND DONT MARRY THEM OFF AT 14 AND WIDOWS DONT END UP SATI-FIED.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because education for women is integral to Hinduism which exhalts Saraswathi as the Goddess of Learning. The Dharma Shastras, and also the Kamasutra talks about educating women. You can see from Artha Shastra that women were employed in government services and were well educated.
Hindus donât send their girls to be "Sati-fied" (if that's a word) because the Islamic Sword is not as scathing as it used to be. The plundering and slave trade have stopped. Thus Sati (which is not a hindu custom at all, and not found in Manu Smrithi or Artha Shastra) is discarded. Have you ever heard of Sati system in South India? Or in places where Islamic hordes did not venture?
YES I KNOW ALL THAT.
BUT AFTER 800 YEARS OF ISLAMISATION, WOMEN'S STATUS IN HINDU SOCIETY WAS NO BETTER THAN IN ARAB SOCIETY. I AM SURE YOU KNOW THAT. IN SOCIALLY BACKWARD PARTS OF INDIA, EARLY MARRIAGE, DOWRY, AND OTHER CRAP STIL GOES ON.
I KNOW WHAT FUELED SATI. I WROTE ABOUT IT IN ANOTHER THREAD TOO. (GANDHI'S LEGACY TREAD).
I SAID AND MAINTAIN THAT ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY WE WERE PULLED OUT OF THE SOCIAL MESS WAS BRAHMO SAMAJ AND ITS STRESS ON CORE VEDIC VALUES.
YOU POINT OUT THAT SOUTH INDIA DIDNT HAVE SATI.
LET ME POINT OUT THAT BENGAL SIMILARLY <b>DOES NOT</b> HAVE THE SORT OF SOCIAL INEQUALITY PRESENT IN FOR EXAMPLE RAJASTHAN OR U.P. YET SATI AND CRAP WAS AS PRESENT IN 18TH CENRURY BENGAL AS IN ANY OTHER PART OF ISLAMISED INDIA.
SOME PEOPLE SHOWED THE LIGHT.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->HMM OK. I WAS TALKING ABOUT RAM MOHON ROY.
BUT EVEN THEN, KESAB CHANDRA SEN HAD MORE TO HIM THE HIS MYOPIC LOVE AND INFATUATION FOR CHRISTIANITY.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would like to know what was more to Keshab Chandra than his love for Xtianity.
USE GOOGLE. READ BOOKS.
AND IF YOU ARE HELL BENT TO BELIEVE THAT ALL HE WAS WAS A CHRISTIANITY LOVING PERSON, THEN YOU CAN CONTINUE TO DO SO.
I JUDGE PEOPLE BY THEIR PLUSSES AND NOT BY A FEW MINUSES THEY MAY HAVE HAD. AND IF HE WAS THE MISSIONARY THAT YOU SUGGEST HE WAS, THEN THE EFFECTS WOULD SHOW AND PEOPLE IN BENGAL WOULD HAVE CONVERTED ENMASS. BUT THATS JUST IN GOA, KERELA AND NAGALAND, MIZORAM ETC.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->AND ALSO SOME OF THE FINER POINTS OF HINDUISM AS SPECIFIED IN THE VEDAS WERE REVIVED WHILE CRAPPIER PARTS LIKE SUPERSTITION AND IDOL WORSHIP (SOME BLACK STONE IS FOUND IN SOME CORNER - NEXT DAY IT BECOMES A TEMPLE. THAT KIND OF CRAP) WAS WEEDED OUT.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting that you give a certificate of goodness and crappiness for the content of the Vedas. How much Vedic knowledge do you have that we can start a debate on the vedic injunctions. Which Vedas are you quoting in the example of Idol Worships, and what proof do you have that there are superstitions in the Vedas ?
I GAVE NO CERTIFICATE.
STOP MISCONSTRUING ME.
WHEN DID I SAY THAT THERE ARE IDOL WORSHIP AND SYUPERSTITIONS IN THE VEDS.
READ MY POST CAREFULLY. (IE. finer points of the vedas etc)
I SAID WHEREAS THE VEDAS ARE LOFTY, ITS INTERPRETATIONS OFTEN SPIRALLED INTO SUPERSTITIOUS CRAP AND BLIND IDOL WORSHIP. the crappier PARTS I MENTION ARE DUE TO THE HALFWIT INTERPRETATIONS OF VEDS BY HINDUS AND HINDU SOCIETY.
VEDIC HINDUISM IS A LOT MORE LIKE THAT OF THE BRAHMO SAMAJ THAT WHAT WE USED TO SEE ALL OVER INDIA IN 1800ISH AND STILL DO IN SOME PARTS.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->AND HAVING MET MANY BRAHMOS I DONT AGREE WITH WHAT DAYANAND HAS TO SAY.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If meeting alone is a criteria, then perhaps you should meet more Arya Samajis. This would tilt the balance in AryaSamaj's favour. How many Arya Samajis have you met and discussed with so far ?
I AM NOT GOING TO GO INTO A BOXING MATCH BETWEEN THESE TWO REFORM MOVEMENTS. IF THATS YOUR INTENTION, SORRY I WONT BITE.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->THAT THE PEOPLE OF BENGAL NEVER FOUND MUCH INTEREST IN ACCEPTING XIANITY AS OPPOSED TO SOME OTHER PARTS OF INDIA, AND THAT THE LEVEL OF SOCIAL JUSTICE IN BENGAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN VERY HIGH EVER SINCE THE BRAHMO SAMAJ, VINDICATES THAT THE INTENTIONS OF THE SAMAJ WAS SUCCESSFUL.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If xtianity had no lure or interest in bengal, then what was the need to adopt an xtian outlook of the "Veds" as you call them?
ER, ITS PRECISELY BECAUSE A X-IAN OUTLOK OF THE VEDS WAS ADOPTED THAT THE PEOPLE OF BENGAL HAVE NO LURE FOR CHRISTIANITY.
READ CAREFULLY INSTEAD OF JUMPING THE GUN.
Give me ONE point, I am not asking you for two or ten, give me ONE valid point that Xtianity or Islam has which is UNIQUE *and* Superior to Sanathana Dharma. Just ONE. (I have asked many ppl this question, including missionaries and Jehova's witnesses, but could not get a proper answer.)
I DONT LIKE THIS "YOUR MOMMA" BETWEEN RELIGIONS YOU ARE TRYING TO DRAG ME INTO.
ITS NOT AS IF MONOTHEISM IS SUPERIOR. ITS JUST THAT THE ENGLISHAND THE MISSIONARIES WERE HAMMERING IT IN, DAY AND NIGHT THAT POLYTHEISM IS PAGAN, THAT IDOL WORSHIP IS ANIMISTIC AND OTHER CRAP.
SO LEST GULLIBLE PEOPLE FALL FOR THIS HARD SELLING OF ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS, THEY (THE HINDUS) WERE TOLD THAT THEIR RELIGION TOO HAS THE SAME ASPECTS IF LOOKED AT IN CERTAIN WAYS.
ITS LIKE YOU HAVE A TAPE RECORDER AND THEN THERE IS SOME COMPANY TRYING TO LURE YOU INTO USING RADIOS.
THEN YOUR TAPE COMPANY POINTS OUT THAT YOUR TAPE IS ACTUALLY A 2-IN-1 AND CAN DOUBLE IN AS A RADIO TO. NOW ANY ATTRACTION YOU MAY HAVE FELT FOR RADIOS IS NEGETED.
TREES ARE KNOWN BY THEIR FRUITS.
FEW IF ANY HINDUS HAVE CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY, AND SOCIAL INJUSTICE HAS BEEN RENDERED A THING OF THE PAST.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->BUT PRETTY MUCH THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE - COS THE BRAHMO SAMAJ MANAGED TO MAKE HINDUS AWARE OF THE BETTER ASPECTS OF HINDUISM WHILEST ENCOURAGING THEM TO CHUCH THE CORRUPTIONS.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought it was Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Gauranga who prevented the seepage.
THEY DID ANOTHER SORT OF PACKAGING.
THEY COUNTERED THE MISSIONARY STYLE HARDSELLING BY A HINDU MISSIONARY (RK MISSION) BODY WHICH WOULD PREACH PEOPLE ABOUT THE +VES OF THEIR RELIGION.
YES THIS TOO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HOLDING HINDUS BACK TO THE FOLD.
ALSO EVEN WITHOUT THE RK"MISSION" AS SUCH, THE VERY COMMING OF SOMEONE LIKE RAMKRISHNA INCREASED THE RELIGIOUS FERVOUR AMONGST THE PEOPLE. THE SAME WAY TILAK'S REVIVAL OF THE GANESH PUJA IN MAHARASHTRA GALVANISED THE PEOPLE AND HELPED THEM TAKE PART IN THEIR IDENTITY.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->HE WAS RIGHT THOUGH. IN A WAY HE DIDNT EVEN SUSPECT.OUT OF INDIA THEORY.
AND YES KESHAB CHANDRA SEN WAS NOT QUITE A BOSE. NOR WERE VERY MANY OTHER INDIANS.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that makes him great?
DID I SAY THAT ???
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->YES. BUT CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT HAVE LOWER CHRISTIANS AND HIGHER.
SLAVERY WAS COS OF SKIN COLOUR DIFFERENCE.
NONE OF THE ABRAHAMIC SOCIETIES ARE DIVIDED BY BIRTH.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps you have not read the bible. Read Deuteronomy and then post your reply.
I KNOW ABOUT DEUTERONOMY AND THE SLAVE OWINING TENETS WRITTEN THERE.
THATS OLD TESTAMENT, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY TRIBAL HISTORY.
I MAINTAIN, THAT CHRISTIANS HAVE A FAR MORE DEMOCRATIC CORPUS, AND DONT HAVE THE PRISON HOUSE OF CASTE SYSTEM (AS WE KNOW IT, UNTOUCHABILITY AND ALL).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->ITS ONE THING TO POINT OUT THAT LOWER CASTRE CONEVERTS INTO ISLAM AND x-IANITY ARE MISTREATED - AND QUITE ANOTHER TO PROVE THAT THEIR BOOKS SAY THEY SHOULD SEGREGATE.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The joke is on the converts. In Christian mythology, God tells Abraham that he has a covenant only with Abraham and his seed and his slaves that he purchased. No one other than the children of Israel are entitled to Heaven. Jesus too confirms that. I advise you to read the bible.
THATS IN JEWISH MYTHOLOGY, NOT CHRISTIAN ORIGINALLY.
WHERE AS THE JEWS ARE JEWS BY BIRTH (AND THUS ARE AN ETHNICITY) THE CHRISTIANS TAKE PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE GLOBE.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->BESIDES INDIA IS THE ONLY COUNTRY WHERE THIS SEGREGATION TAKES PLACE AMONGST MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS - SO I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS IS AN ASPECT THEY LEARNT FROM HINDUS AND DOESNT EXIST IN THEIR RELIGIONS PER SE'.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the Quran - a Manual on Jehad. Understand Islam thru Hadiths.
DONT NEED TO.
I JUST PREFER TO LOOK AROUND.
HAVE YOU SEEN LESSER AND GREATER MUSLIMS??
HAVE YOU SEEN SOME MUSLIMS BEING KEPT AWAY FROM MOSQUES WHILE OTHERS ARE ALLOWED (IN COUNTRIES OUTSIDE INDIA) ??
THEY PRAY TOGETHER. PRINCE AND PAUPER FORGET ABOUT THEIR EARTHLY STATUS AND BIRTH AND PRAY TOGETHER. THEY EAT IFTAR TOGETHER AND THE "LOWER" MUSLIMS ARE NOT ASKED TO EAT OUTSIDE.
MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS FOR ALL THEIR FAULTS ARE A LOT MORE DEMOCRATIC AND EGALITARIAN, AS ARE BUDDHISM AND JAINISM.
TO USE A WESTERN CHICHE, - (LEARN TO) GIVE THE DEVIL ITS DUE.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Dec 2 2005, 04:12 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Dec 2 2005, 04:12 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Valmiki was sudra and Lord Krishana was Kstriya. Both were master of Vedas.
[right][snapback]42378[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i am aware of that.
thats how it was BEFORE the islamics.
and what was the socio-economic situation in 1800ish pray, after 800 years of muslimisation of north (of vindhyas) india ??
