Why I oppose the Aryan invasion theory

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Where would you go to?

There are lots of countries requiring the skills which I'm investing in.

Or, alternately, I could go into the SEZs, if these policies don't apply there.

[KrazyHorse]

I didn't realise other countries had a use for revisionist hindu history.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm


That's because there's a lot of politics going on around caste.

We know, we know....



Have you ever wondered how numerically inferior forces have been able to subject large parts of the Hindu dominated Indian sub-continent to their rule for so long, so often ?


If you have a religion that has scheduled and non-scheduled castes, who no matter what they achieve cannot rise in society the way for instance a butcher's son could in Tudor England, or the offspring of an African slave in a Muslim state, then it has created a ready made enemy in its midst with entirely justifiable reasons to feel discriminated against.

Is it any wonder Buddhism and Christianity proved popular amongst Dalits and non-scheduled castes?

Equally, no wonder that BJP dominated states should legislate to make conversions more difficult...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Have you ever wondered how numerically inferior forces have been able to subject large parts of the Hindu dominated Indian sub-continent to their rule for so long, so often ?

Probably for the similar reasons numerically inferior forces have been able to rule over large parts of most areas at some point or another in the past, from Europeans over most of the world, turks over arabs and Persian, arabs over dozens of peoples, Norman French over English. It just happens. Sometimes its due to an old society being slow to adjust to new social conditions.

From what I can gather Indian society HAS adjusted, and its a meritocratic society that Aneeshm wants today.

The society that conquered both muslim and Hindu India in the mid 18th c was far from egalitarian, despite the oppurtunities open to butchers sons.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by molly bloom


We know, we know....



Have you ever wondered how numerically inferior forces have been able to subject large parts of the Hindu dominated Indian sub-continent to their rule for so long, so often ?

The same way that they did in all other societies - by a combination of social systems and a monopoly over knowledge.

Originally posted by molly bloom

If you have a religion that has scheduled and non-scheduled castes, who no matter what they achieve cannot rise in society the way for instance a butcher's son could in Tudor England, or the offspring of an African slave in a Muslim state, then it has created a ready made enemy in its midst with entirely justifiable reasons to feel discriminated against.

You make the same mistake.

Caste is a social institution, not a religious one. But people think it is religious simply because the people who wrote the lawbooks thousands of years ago wrote about and sanctioned it.

The Hindu religion is fluid, and when it realises that when a system is not in conformance with its ideals (as is is doing now), it discards it.

For instance, the VHP's chief has emphatically and completely rejected the Manu Smriti, which is used as a stick to beat Hinduism with. These people are working for reforms.

Originally posted by molly bloom

Is it any wonder Buddhism and Christianity proved popular amongst Dalits and non-scheduled castes?

The Buddha, contrary to popular belief, never spoke against caste. He merely advocated the middle path. He also never spoke about any social system, in fact. He was concerned most about his monks.


Also, you show your total ignorance of the Hindu social system.

Anybody - irrespective of caste, gender, anything - could become an ascetic, or a renunciate, and take sanyas. After this taking of sanyas and the quitting of society, no ties to old society remained. A mock funeral was conducted for the person who renounced society this way - to signify their total separation from their old life. After that, social distinctions ceased to matter completely. There was no Brahmin, no Sudra, no untouchable, nothing, just a sannyasi. That is why there is a saying - never seek the source of a sannyasi and a river. And this practice continues till today.

This is exactly the same thing Buddhism offered to its monks. Buddhist societies were equally caste-based.

There is a theory that untouchability may have become worse under Buddhism - all respectable people stopped eating meat under the influence of Buddhism, but this led to a further stigmatisation of the people who dealt in "unclean" jobs, such as those dealing with the butchering of animals or anything at all to do with dead animals and their handling.

Originally posted by molly bloom

Equally, no wonder that BJP dominated states should legislate to make conversions more difficult...

The real wonder being that a so-called "Dravidian" party did the same, and the Congress did the same?

[aneeshm]

Have you read what I posted about "Who is a Brahmin", and the list of people who rose in status in spite of caste? Shivaji, who is a personal hero of mine, was nominally "lower" caste. Did that stop him from establishing an empire every Hindu should be proud of?

[DaShi]

Token Brahmin?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by DaShi

Token Brahmin?

What?

[DaShi]

TOKEN BRAHMIN?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by aneeshm
That is why there is a saying - never seek the source of a sannyasi and a river.

Funny, our comparable saying goes "Never investigate the depth of a woman's soul and the ingredients of a sausage."

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by aneeshm
an empire every Hindu should be proud of

Why?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Why?

Why not? It was far, far better than the period of Muslim rule which preceded it, and it gave a lot of the country unity. Even when the empire disintegrated, the individual princely states were (comparatively) competent rulers. The reign of Ahilya Bai Holkar marks a high point in the history of Indore, for instance. The Peshwa rule over Pune is looked back upon with fondness even today.

[LordShiva]

Oh, certainly it had many beneficial effects, as you outline. But it was, as empires usually are, essentially built on pillage, plunder, and rape, not things in which I generally take pride.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Why not? It was far, far better than the period of Muslim rule which preceded it, and it gave a lot of the country unity. Even when the empire disintegrated, the individual princely states were (comparatively) competent rulers. The reign of Ahilya Bai Holkar marks a high point in the history of Indore, for instance. The Peshwa rule over Pune is looked back upon with fondness even today.

this is the opinion of hindus not muslims

[MRT144]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


save vs spell.