Economic & Political Weekly (EPW) tears into the “preamble” of the BJP manifesto saying the party has not given up on its “feel-good” theme. In 2004, it tried to fly the kite of an “India Shining”; in 2009, it is recycling the myth of “India Glorious” from ancient times.
The BJP premable, signed by Murli Manohar Joshi, tries to sell India as “the most ancient and continuing civilisation of the world”, when it was not. It talks of Indian farmers dazzling foreign travellers with their agricultural abundance when famine was common. It talks of a superior “indigenous education system” that compared with the best in England when there were no schools or colleges as we know them today. And it talks of a health care system complete with vaccines and plastic surgery.
“Most insidious is the manner in which the preamble conflates the “Bharatiya world view”, Hindu thought and secularism “in the real sense of the term”.
“The notion of the secular was actually not known to the Hindus, as the secular requires giving priority to the human being irrespective of his or her beliefs. Hindus were concerned with establishing caste and sect.
“Only the Buddhists expounded a view that might be called secular since they emphasised social ethics irrespective of other links. And the Buddhists were ousted by the Hindus.“
Read the full editorial: India Shining to India was Shining
Tags: 2009 Elections, 2009 General Elections, Bharatiya, Bharatiyata, BJP, BJP Manifesto, Buddhism, Buddhists, C. Rammanohar Reddy, Churumuri, Economic & Political Weekly, Elections, EPW, Hinduism, Hindus, India Shining, Murli Manohar Joshi, Sans Serif
5 May 2009 at 5:40 pm
EPW has clearly allowed its political leanings to influence this piece.
It tries to transpose a very obscure and vague definition of “secular” into ancient India and brand it as some sort of permanent Taliban rule. This definition is a twisted definition of the Western notion of secularism more concerned with placing a wall between Church and State than humanist values or any such thing. Essentially this definition of “secular” is only thinly veiled atheism. And of course, only a few Hindus were atheists.
This of course means that there was no difference between say, the Spanish Inquisition, Jaziya and Hindu society throughout the ages in terms of respect of followes of other religions. Besides, this definition means that there is no difference between Saudi Arabia and India of today.
In its haste to condemn the BJP, EPW has abandoned all notion of careful thought. This is less an editorial and more of a high school rant.
Not expected of one of India’s premier academic journals.
5 May 2009 at 6:12 pm
Indian National Congress is the Most Secular party! They are the Nation and they know all.
This would have been enough for the above article!
5 May 2009 at 7:16 pm
‘lok very well put.
the thing is these guys are so blinded by their own theory that they are willing to even to let the truth go.
i think the glorious buddhism of yore is itself a myth. it was most likely an elite phenomenon. especially exclusive buddha-only type of buddhism. outside of elite circles, i am pretty sure ordinary indians did the buddha, the (neighbourhood)bush and the bhaskara. otherwise, how does a system evaporate in india just because you hack out their libraries and mathas? hindus and buddhists both faced the similar fates. and yet the superstitious and retrograde hindus held on to their system and the rational and progressive buddhists vapourized? tell me another.
the modern elite, who otherwise wave jhanDaas in the name of the common man, flog this bogie of buddhism only because they are ashamed of the system of the commons. the system of non-doctrinaire commons is highly disorganized and eclectic and kitschy. but this does not appeal to the calling of the elite, does it? they want first order (and hence superficial) structure and order. they donot care about the secularism of ordinary people, because this secularism is rooted in reality and hence very localized in both time and space. no definite structure to it, other than the ever evolving dynamic meta structure of the commity of commons – which is very crude but very fair and involves no grand principles other than practicality.
the elite only want a reality that is beautiful. they dont want to face the ugliness of reality. in that sense they are as superstitious as the people they accuse of being superstitious.
in any case, nuances apart, buddhism is nothing more than a nihilistic repackaging of what was already known in the era of upanishads. i honestly dont know what is the big deal in dropping the ecelectic wisdom of the vedas. buddhism basically dropped that natural order, of multiple seers and cryptic language and non-impact to ordinary living and replaced it with the cult of prophets & mathas & state religions in india. buddists introduced all these things in india. ever notice how, in neither ramayana or mahabharatha there is no doctrinal material – even when the mahabharata contains the bhagwadgeeta.
basically, buddha went about like a politician promising salvation to all humanity. when the ‘retrogrades’ of upanishadic period where not even sure about their own deliverance forget the rest. charlatan that he was, buddha also said suffering is a common condition – ala obama. do these elites really beleive that by following any set of rules, anybody, forget humanity, can be delivered?
5 May 2009 at 7:26 pm
The editorial takes a high moral ground and calls MMJ’s preamble half-truth, but they conveniently forgets the truth when they say , ” And the Buddhists were ousted by the Hindus.”
If the buddhists were ousted, then where did they go?
Buddhism had spread widely across India. If they were kicked then you should find buddists of indian origin elsewhere? Where are they?
Churumuri,
Ek do teen chaar, band karo yeh atyachaar!!
5 May 2009 at 8:38 pm
Churumuri going from worse to Most Worst Pathetic (sorry for the tripple superlative), written with no truth… needs no more explanation…. i blame myself for wasting my time reading this and also typing this but atleast others will be wary, if they read this comment.(that is if you publish this and not delete)
5 May 2009 at 9:07 pm
Is it really so easy to get published? Anything can be written?? Is the author Jean Dreze? I saw his op-ed in ToI. Same theme, same words.
Will this link shut up the author??
http://www.aboardcertifiedplasticsurgeonresource.com/plastic_surgery/history.html
Now, who do we petition for apologies?
***
TS – I admire your style. You are also correct even though I thought the term charlatan for the Buddha was a bit over the top. In his time the Buddha had numerous competitors but his school seems to have prevailed over the rest. The real and permanent change and damage came with Ashoka.
5 May 2009 at 9:35 pm
“Buddhists were ousted by the Hindus”
Blame the Hindus for everything! Is it because the ‘secular’ media feels that there is a chance that BJP might come to power?
5 May 2009 at 10:50 pm
EPW “tears” into the BJP manifesto. Should be a very ferocious creature, but of the arm-chair variety. Open your mouth and try to say any word even remotely connected to “Hindu” and these creatures immediately pounce on you. After all, they hold the monopoly on “intellectual” thought (in particular, secularism) in Bharat.
6 May 2009 at 4:43 am
The piece reminds me of Shatavadhani Ganesh’s remark “enaaru uMTE taaLa-meLa? … ivarugaLige esht baayigaLive.. ellelli baaygaLive” (youtube)
—
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/463763/plastic-surgery
“The modern definition of plastic surgery is rooted in ancient medicine. The Sanskrit text Sushruta-samhita, written about 600 bce by ancient Indian medical practitioner Sushruta, describes, with surprising modernity, a quintessential plastic surgical procedure: the reconstruction of mutilated noses using tissue bridged from the cheek…”
Of course, that’s just Britannica drivel. EPW surely knows better.
“The Delhi iron pillar (DIP) (Fig. 1) is testimony to the high level of skill
achieved by the ancient Indian iron smiths in the extraction and processing of iron. The iron pillar at Delhi has attracted the attention of archaeologists and corrosion technologists as it has withstood corrosion for the last 1600 years.” — http://home.iitk.ac.in/~bala/journalpaper/journal/journalpaper_17.pdf
6 May 2009 at 12:08 pm
Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes truth. Brahmin bashing is a big industry in India.
The claim of Hindus (read Brahmins) ousting Buddhists is a big joke with no shred of evidence. Even according to the godfather of all eminent Marxist historians, D.D. Kosambi, Buddhism after the 2th century CE had become completely uneconomical. The lotus eating Buddhist Monks survived on state patronage and were never part of the productive process. Buddhism for all its greatness was mainly confined to the monkhood and never percolated to the masses. And majority of the Buddhist monks were from the Brahmin community. Unlike the Buddhist monks the general Brahmin householder was part of the productive process and they had a sufficiently advanced almanac which could predict rains and life events (even if it was flawed atleast they were trying). They were very much involved in mundane activities The Brahmins were able to convince the Kings with a better narrative of the Kings prowess, lineage and ritualized the state ceremonies through some nice help from the Puranas.
That apart, what happened to the Buddhists. Some of these eminents claim that Buddhism was destroyed by Shankara. This is a big joke. By the time of Shankara in 7th century CE, Buddhism was already in the decline. All Shankara did was provide a more persuasive argument to win some dilapidated Buddhist monks to his mode of thinking. There is not a shred of evidence that Shankara was political. The Shankara digvijaya is a highly detailed chronicle. The eminent historians of India who have no knowledge of Sanskrit cannot but ignore these historical texts else their Marxist narrative and agenda gets derailed.
Another clue to what happened to the Buddhists. Most Buddhist names were confined and preserved by Brahmins till very recently. Names like Prajna, Paramitha, Buddha (remember our Bengal CM), padma, Milinda etc were names kept exclusively by Brahmins till a few decades ago. Now these names are fashionable across all communities. What does it prove. Another big lie propogated by eminents like Romila Thapar and Wendy Doniger is that there were two separate traditions in India Shramanas and Brahmanas. The shramanas were Buddhists and Jains and Brahmins were of course the evil Brahmins. A common surname among Brahmins is ‘Sharma’ whose root comes from Shramana. Now you apply Occams Razor and figure out what this means. The first mention of Shramana also comes from Taitereya Aranyaka of Shukla Yajur veda – “Shramathi Tapasyathi iti Shramanaha’ – One who does lot of austerities is a sharamana.
What does this prove. That the ancient Buddhists and Shramans were ancestors of modern Brahmins. Also vedantic sages like Gaudapada (Adi Shankara’s Guru’s Guru) who wrote a treatise on Mandukya Upanishad has been ‘accussed of as being aligned to Buddhist thought’. So was Adi Shankara who was/is called as ‘Prachhana Boudha’, disguised Buddhist. Several Brahmin lineages of the Saraswath community claim that the Mahayana Buddhist thinker and sage Chandrakirthi was their ancestor. The Tibetan texts talk of Buddhist Masters like Nagarjuna, Naropa, Tilopa and Saraha as Brahmins.
Now here comes some of these folks and tell us that Buddhists were some rare species who vanished from India without a trace. They were very much part of us and were our ancestors. We have a common heritage. Spare us your baseless drivel.
6 May 2009 at 12:14 pm
……And the Buddhists were ousted by the Hindus.“
and gone along with it the glories of India, which had moral power to rule India and influence all the known world of its time. Now these “Hindus” cannot even command respect in Nepal. Wonder what cheddi Madhavan did in Nepal?
Brahminism, whether CONgress guileful variety, RSS hate variety or CPM goonda variety will not last.
***
This Murli is not the same who wanted Astrology in the syllabus?? Humm ..the same high gotra one, who is more Brahmin than any in BJP, IIRC he flaunted his jutti to prove!!
Poor guy, should have known the result of “India Shining”, afterall he had his lineup of astrologers and being Brahmin of Brahmins.
6 May 2009 at 2:38 pm
FLASH NEWS: Buddhism became latest victim of religious hatred on churumuri …. now people with hearts filled with hate venom are spewing all over it! Some great Vedanti even called Buddha a Charlatan.
When ever anything is said against hinduism, why do brahmins here get hysterical, Is hinduism property of Brahmins or its imperative that brahmins cannot survive without hinduism, just like mullahs of Islam? All arguments that hinduism is an equal opportunity religion is bull crap, present and practicing hinduism has always given Brahmins unfair advantages and priviliges.
Stop hate mongering and promote peace, tolerance towards other religions!
6 May 2009 at 5:46 pm
DS,
if it helps, shankara, ramanuja, anandathirtha who also established mathas were all charlatans too. no to mention sundry others. ok na?
i said buddha was a charlatan bcoz: he seeded the cult of prophets & mathas & state religions in india.
but more importantly, i believe this whole idea of deliverance is snake oil. he was a charlatan bcoz he was promising people deliverance by following formulas. to paraphrase a wiseman, buddha himself didnot become buddha by doing anything he said or asked others to do.
i didnot drag buddha into this. the epw-walas did. why is it not hate when you drag the religion of commons through muck? hinduism has thousand flaws, but lack of respect for other ways is definitely not one of them.
6 May 2009 at 6:07 pm
“Stop hate mongering and promote peace, tolerance towards other religions”. Well said. Hope the mullahs and missionaries listen to this advice.
6 May 2009 at 6:08 pm
oh! btw, there is an old, really old rhetorical criticism of vedic sacrifices, if the sacrificed animal goes to heaven, then why does not the priest sacrifice himself. exactly, i say.
btw, read shastri’s post carefully. he is making a case that evil bremins maintained and carried buddhist thought through out. the one set of evil bremins were accusing another set of being pracchanna boudhas (closet buddhists) and this was in the 13th century. and this was not like you and me slinging accusations at each other, if you care to know, you should go and read the actual debates and why they called the others buddhists and what they meant by it.
but you dont want to know do you. why should you? when the expedient meme of the evil bremins captures all your fantasies and justifies all your inadequacies, why vanquish the useful ghost?
so you tell me, how is it possible for one set of bremins, accusing the other set of bremins of being buddhists without both of them having intimate knowledge of buddhist nuances?
6 May 2009 at 6:38 pm
DS says, “Stop hate mongering and promote peace, tolerance towards other religions!”
- This after he has hate monegerd to his heart’s content against Hinduism. And why should Brahmins not defend Hinduism my friend? Moreover who told you that it was only Brahmins who speak up for Hinduism? Sorry to tell but calling the Buddha a charlatan is not an act of hate.
I wonder what DS would call Khan’s post. A loving side act?
6 May 2009 at 8:47 pm
TS,
Charlatan is probably a harsh word. Nevertheless liked your post. Keep it coming. :)
6 May 2009 at 9:32 pm
Hmm. Reading Communists to understand Hinduism. Perfect.
Tomorrow we will read ‘Mein Kampf’ to understand Judaism.
7 May 2009 at 12:42 pm
oh then why is budhdha considered an avatar of vishnu?
7 May 2009 at 12:58 pm
I dont understand why the Brahmin readers of this blog is getting riled up. Just tell me what is there for these Brahmins to be proud of??
Implementing the caste system so rigidly that generations of fellow human beings of a supposedly lower birth were left to lurch in extreme poverty and be persecuted for no fault of theirs?
Watch like buffoons because of the divisions in the society brought about by the caste system implemented by them when Islamists hordes invaded India and ravaged it for a 1000 years?
Create Hindu organizations like Hindu Mahasabha and RSS and support the British against the INC in the freedom struggle?
The bottomline is that it is solely because of the wretched caste system so zealously implemented by the Brahmins, we Indians are a third world country and today dependent on the Christan nations of the West for our economic survival.
7 May 2009 at 2:18 pm
Reality – Where do you get your facts from? Any source we can go to?
In the meanwhile, please could you make a list of all Shudra and Brahmin rulers in the past 1000 years or more?
That would be an objective start.
I’m not denying the reality of untouchability. But you need to prove to us that it was the Brahmin who instituted and maintained it.
7 May 2009 at 3:29 pm
Dr. Reality:
I vote for conferring Doctorate to ‘Reality’ for his/her extensive research, understanding and theories on atrocties committed by Brahmins.
Anybody care to second me ?
7 May 2009 at 4:10 pm
Reality
To answer your anti Brahmin rant about what Brahmins can be proud of.
Brahmins developed an advanced language with well structured grammar, Developed a huge body of ancient science (Bhaskara, Varahamihira, aryabhatta..), Literature, philosophy in India. Why should they not be proud of their heritage. Please list the contribution of others vis a vis Brahmins in Indian history.
Islamic hordes could invade and ravage india because they had better war strategies. The people of the plains (indians) were no match to the Turks and Mongols as they had well honed and optimized war mechanism developed in their tough local terrians. Caste or no caste Indians were no match to them. The british conquered because of Naval power and Guns. We Indians had none of it. Neither did the arabs or the africans or middle easterners or far easterners or chinese or red indians. Were Brahmins also involved in these countries.
It has become a fashion now to blame everything on Brahmins. If Brahmins had so much control over all others in India I am simply amazed. That too with not much political power. But my question is what were the others doing.
***
Reality
“Create Hindu organizations like Hindu Mahasabha and RSS and support the British against the INC in the freedom struggle?”
What makes you think Brahmins had nothing to do with INC – ever heard of Tilak, Gokhale, Nehru….
7 May 2009 at 4:41 pm
I would like to know if ‘The Hindu’ original publisher of the article can come out with names of those highly eminent historians.
There has been a disciplined effort from all the stalinist and nehruvian historians to bring out the message that we(indians) was never great.
They say that there were no schools or colleges as seen today so there wasn’t an education system. There were no hospitals, so no healthcare, there was famine so there could never have been a prospering agricultural system.
I don’t claim whatever MMJ says in the manifesto is absolutely true. There could be exaggeration. Historians themselves claim its half-truth. But the unfortunate and paradoxical thing is that the historians have not even tried to maintain the half truth. It a blatant lie.
Coming to hindu-buddhist encounters, there have been much more wonderful stories the very same historians have stiched so not surprised at all. Hindu temples is hampi were destroyed because of shiava-vaishnava fight is one such story.
The articla on hindu can be found here : http://www.hindu.com/mag/2009/05/03/stories/2009050350100400.htm
After all this the Hindu call itself “the national newspaper of India”
7 May 2009 at 5:16 pm
“Only the Buddhists expounded a view that might be called secular since they emphasised social ethics irrespective of other links. And the Buddhists were ousted by the Hindus.”
This is poppycock analysis.
The author is mixing up social ethics with secularism. Every organized religion or belief system has social ethics and they can not be termed secular, Budhism including. Secularism is acceptance of diversity of beliefs, toleration of different customs and modes of life. More a religion is organized and dogmatic it fosters less secularism. The original Buddhism was not in any way tolerant to other beliefs. They made a strong point against various other schools of thought and had a very well defined and strict path towards salvation – the noble truths and eight fold path and all. I am not of course talking about the modern garden western variety of Buddhism where it is interpreted as a kind of empirical reductionism but the original Buddhism of the pali canon with its vinaya rules et all.
Christianity with its ‘Jesus only saves, all else damned’ can never foster secularism neither can the rigid Islamic beleif of ‘Allah only others dhimmi’ can ever hold up to the ideal of secularism. If the author is mentioning about secularism meaning the separation of the religion from the state all these three well organized religions fails the litmus test. Buddhism thrived on state patronage and used the authority of the ruler to spread its dogma. So did christianity and islam.
The question is what mode of belief systems have brought about and fostered secularism in the world. Secularism is mainly a by product of rational humanism, disorganized and loosely held beliefs with little state or organizational intervention. The term came into vogue after the French revolution. Secularism has been evidenced in mainly polytheistic, pantheistic or scientific based societies. What has fostered secularism in the west is the development and acceptance of the scientific method. Polytheistic and pantheistic societies like ancient Greece were secular. So was India. As a matter of fact pre-Buddhist India was more secular than post-buddhist. Buddha himself went to different schools and practices austeries and their mode of living before coming up with his own. That was more of a norm. The Hindu religion (not the political hindutva) with less organizational control and varied beliefs also foster secularism in the acceptance of multiple deities. Pre Islamic arabia with multitudes of Gods was secular but not the Islamic and post Islamic. Neither can communism with its rigid posturing against beliefs other than their own foster secularism.
7 May 2009 at 6:14 pm
Metaempiricus – I’m very uncomfortable when secularism is used to describe societies like the Hindu and ancient Greeks.
Secularism grew out of specific developments in Europe. One can say secularism is a by product of Western Christianity.
There is no way secularism means acceptance “of multiple deities”, if that is indeed what your saying. This version in particular, is an Indian spin on the term.
7 May 2009 at 6:49 pm
If Hindu Mahasabha and RSS indded collude with the British, then what about the commies and their role during the independence movement?
Along with hospitals, colleges etc. “The Hindu” could have also added to say that we did not have any newspapers in ancient India. Only after advent of “The Hindu” we had the good fortune of knowing about history, secularism etc. Ram, Ram..
7 May 2009 at 7:32 pm
Since no one commented on “health care system complete with vaccines”, let me point out that one can find description of the smallpox vaccination in ancient India in late Dharampal’s works.
Dharampal, was a Gandhian & historian. He, unlike our modern armchair historians, did painstaking work going over colonial British documents. Some of his works are available for downloading. You can find more about Dharampal & his works at http://www.samanvaya.com/dharampal
7 May 2009 at 7:34 pm
Palahalli
I do hold secularism as an acceptance / tolerence of different belief systems, customs and world views. If it be an indian spin so be it.
I don’t agree with you that secularism is a by product of western christianity.
I would like to rephrase that as – Secularism arose in the west as a result of the inadequecy of the christian worldview to provide a model of governance which the newer developments in scientific, sociological and philosophical thinking could provide. This resulted in the separation of the State and the church. Wherein the state follows scientific laws and rules and church operates in the realm of faith and blind belief. It was a compromise formula.
7 May 2009 at 9:49 pm
Metaempiricus – That’s my point. Why do we need to adapt a strange term and then spin it out of it’s real context when we don’t have to?
Your rephrase (if taken to be true) proves my point again. Without a Christian inadequacy, we would not have been witness to it’s by-product in the first place. I suspect there is more to the separation than just the need to provide governance based on “scientific laws”. I also think your dismissal of the realm of faith as “blind belief” is typical of what we observe of secularism’s thrust.
You see, when you try and transpose secularism onto Indian society..where such a need is not naturally justified in the same way as Christians justified secularism as filling in for Christianity’s inadquacy..you are left with trying to force fit a justification.
I believe the entire demonization of Hinduism in today’s secular India is a necessary condition of this secular thrust.
If you peruse the history of Hindu rule you will be hard pressed to see conflict between so-called temporal and so-called sacral structures. Us guys just thought differently and had different experiences.
I’m just now reading an excellent book by SN Balagangadhara. It’s called “Heathen in his Blindness”.
Amongst other things, he also discusses the developments with secularism.
I hope K’priya is reading this. This is my reason to reject secularism in India.
8 May 2009 at 3:56 am
palahalli – beautifully put!
8 May 2009 at 1:16 pm
I cant believe this. The Brahmins on this blog feign complete ignorance on the devastating role played by their ancestors.
By implementing the caste system it were the Brahmins who gained the most. As advisers to the kings they made sure the caste system was implemented rigidly. And thus excluding a large # of Indians from education and choosing the occupation of their choice. This is the reason why other castes didn’t “contribute” much or anything to the civilization.
Because of the caste system there was no unity in the subcontinent. This allowed Islamist hordes to invade, plunder and rape at their will and followed by the Brits. Because of unity today India has defeated Islamist Pakistan in all the wars till now.
If education and freedom to choose their occupation were available for all Indians from ancient times, our history would have been very different now.
8 May 2009 at 2:44 pm
Reality, if you could prove your arguments with sources and evidence, it would sound better and believable.
As it stands, the denial of education is discredited fully by hard evidence to the contrary. I have posted about The Beautiful Tree by Dharampal. Please read to satisfy yourself.
9 May 2009 at 4:51 am
pala nice note on secularism. read your some of your blog. i bet it comes from all the hardwork you have putting in to understand this.
did you notice the brazen psyops in this article? hindus are not secular. duh!! secularism is a characteristic of a polity. not peoples. by definition ‘hindus’ are hindus. and muslims muslims.
i tell you these guys rant a lot about revisionism, when their own entire corpus is revisionist. ardha maar original thought illa. not even their theories.
btw did you check prof. bala’s latest post?
9 May 2009 at 11:35 am
Brahmins are responsible for giving India administration. If it werent for brahmins,India would be in the dark ages. Is this the credit you give them, targeting them for being selfish?
All you people are enjoying the benefits of the toils of the Brahmins. It is very easy to sit in the comforts of your living rooms and pointing fingers? What have your communities done for India?
9 May 2009 at 12:17 pm
All you people are enjoying the benefits of the toils of the Brahmins. It is very easy to sit in the comforts of your living rooms and pointing fingers? What have your communities done for India?
What other communities have done is feed the bada brahmin to such an extent that he had could hardly get up.
About the administration, from what time you are talking?After collaborating with British in 1857, they rewarded you with clerk post? You just worked on the system already there and the language, Urdu!!!
9 May 2009 at 12:54 pm
tarlesubba,
this is of course psyops..the other day I hit upon this interview of Yuri Bezmenov, an ex KGB who was posted in India too.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov
He talks about how KGB recruited commie journos / academicians to do psyops, demoralization, influence public opinion. After soviet collapse, it is definitely China who could be doing all this. the idea is to divide Hindus, show Hinduism in bad light. They know for sure, weakening Hindus will weaken India.
9 May 2009 at 1:32 pm
Thanks for the kind words TS.
Is there a link you can give on Prof. Balu’s work?
Btw, I think Khan is still hurting about loss of empire in 1857. He feels bad that Zafar and his clan missed their only chance. (Btw, even that could only have happened with Hindu help.)
9 May 2009 at 1:42 pm
Khan Saab!
Somehow I don’t see you asking for Sharia in India for your brethern!
10 May 2009 at 12:40 pm
Khan
“After collaborating with British in 1857..”
Have you heard of mangal pandey, Tatya Tope, Nana Saheb and Rani Laxmi Bai. Can you please explain how they collaborated with the british. It was Bahadur shah Zafar the so called emperor of whole India who begged mercy from British. His children used to get a monthly allowance for british but unfotunately for the family of the mughals they were thrust into the freedom movement unwillingly. Bahadur Shah took lot of pains to prove that he is not anti british. There are complete documented records for this. This is what happens if you study history in Madarsas.
“You just worked on the system already there …..”
So you agree the brahmins worked in the system already there then what abt all the talk of manuwada and implementing it and controlling soceity. How can clerks control soceity. It is logical to think the people in power controlled them. Here goes one more myth into thin air.
11 May 2009 at 2:18 pm
Were Buddhists outsted by Hindus.We find many reference to this regard.I found a link regarding this.But this may be half truth.Many viharas are destroyed and converted to temples.Many argue that Statues in Tirupathi and Shabarimala are of Budhdha.You can see the link @
http://www.mail-archive.com/zestcaste@yahoogroups.com/msg00699.html
11 May 2009 at 4:36 pm
Satish,
The site you have provided is the usual sub altern dalit rant against hinduism. There is not a shred of historical evidence which can substantiate the claims made in that hate site.
“Nazi leaders like the Sankaracharyas and many kings and rulers took pride in demolishing the Buddhist images aiming at the total eradication of the Buddhist culture.”
Please give us the evidence. Not some hate rantings of political groups.
11 May 2009 at 4:38 pm
Incidentally some of the Hindutva folks have claimed that the Kabaa was a Shiva temple and Taj Mahal was Tejo Mahalaya. The site you have referenced belongs to the same genre.