Why I oppose the Aryan invasion theory

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by MRT144


this is the opinion of hindus not muslims

That's rubbish.

The Marathas always employed competent Muslims, without prejudice. Hell, many Maratha artillery commanders were Turkish Muslims. Even the Muslims are forced to acknowledge that the Marathas never actually did anything bad to them. For instance, Shivaji's troops were given standing orders that if any copy of the Quran fell into their hands, they were to return it to the maulvi in the next village they passed.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by 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.

Evidence for this?

The Marathas are absolutely LOVED in Maharashtra, precisely because they did not pillage, plunder, and rape. They are also loved in Indore (people consider the Holkar rule a high point).

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by DaShi
TOKEN BRAHMIN?

WTF DOES THAT MEAN?

[Kuciwalker]

Evidence for this?

I'd think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they didn't, given the overwhelming historical trend.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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.

Gosh, I must remember to study some history.

How did the Normans defeat the Anglo-Saxons ?

I do seem to recall a rather important battle against the ruling house of England, in, oh, what was it ? 1066 ? or thereabouts, but thanks for trying to refresh my memory.

I notice you don't make any population comparisons between numbers of Arabs and numbers of Turks, by the way.

Also, the point is that Hinduism by discriminating against a large group of people within its midst creates a body of people with no abiding reason to fight for a religious and social system that discriminates against it.

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

Yeah, right. Let's all join hands and pretend that aneeshm and the BJP want all Hindus and non-Hindus treated exactly the same. I think you'll find that your information about the secular nature of Indian society is somewhat out of date, thanks to the chauvinist activities of the BJP in the past few decades.

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.

Whoever said it was ? It wasn't a 'society' that did the conquering, by the way, but a commercial company.

And Warren Hastings and Robert Clive both started out as clerks.

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

aneeshm


No I don't. How many Hindu rulers were of African descent, or have been from scheduled or non-scheduled castes ?

Would a Dalit or a member of a non-scheduled caste be treated as a social equal in 16th Century India in the same way that Thomas Wolsey or Thomas Cranmer were in Tudor England ?

Attempting to suggest that caste is 'only' social and doesn't have a religious element is bizarre-

11 When they divided Purusa how many portions did they make?
What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?
12 The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made.
His thighs became the Vaisya, from his feet the Sudra was produced.

that's the 'Rig-Veda', X.90, verses 11-12.

Now, the Rig Veda is one of the Hindu sacred texts, isn't it ?

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.

aneeshm

Well, I wonder who promulgates this 'theory' ? Could we have an idea, please ?

Bet they aren't Buddhists, are they ?

[OzzyKP]

shouldn't this be in the history forum?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Also, the point is that Hinduism by discriminating against a large group of people within its midst creates a body of people with no abiding reason to fight for a religious and social system that discriminates against it.

This is a stupid statement. Even Indian Christians and Muslims have castes. A man venerated almost as a "Prophet" by the Dalits/Harijans of India, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, wrote that the status of the Muslim lower castes and untouchables was worse than that of the Hindu ones. In Churches, different castes frequently have separate pews. Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs also have castes.

As I have stated repeatedly before, caste is a social phenomenon, not really a religious one, or it would have disappeared when people converted.

Originally posted by molly bloom

Yeah, right. Let's all join hands and pretend that aneeshm and the BJP want all Hindus and non-Hindus treated exactly the same.

Let's all stick to our prejudices, shall we, instead of actually listening to what the other person has to say? Today, Hindus and non-Hindus are not treated equally by the state. Minorities are given all manner of advantages and benefits by the state - or rather, by politicians wishing to corner the Muslim vote. Which other country on this planet offers them a subsidy to go on their pilgrimage, and manages the whole thing for them, whereas Hindu pilgrims to places within India itself are taxed at an extra 30%? Why is it that money collected as taxes from temples is used to fund this subsidy, and to fund madarsas?

Why is it that when the state demolishes more than a hundred tiny Hindu shrines, there is no protest (because people realise that it was being done to build infrastructure), but whenever a single Muslim dargah is demolished for the same reason and by the same people the shrines are, there is rioting on and violence in the streets?

Yes, we want to end all this special treatment given to minorities. We want to end the special status of Kashmir (we want to allow everyone to be allowed to settle there, if they so wish, or to buy land and property there, as is the case in all other states). We want a common law for all communities. We want to make everyone equal under the law. If you see anything wrong in that, then you are requested to go to hell.

Originally posted by molly bloom

I think you'll find that your information about the secular nature of Indian society is somewhat out of date, thanks to the chauvinist activities of the BJP in the past few decades.

The BJP was in power only once, from the period 1998 to 2004. After that, we're back to Congress rule. This statement about "decades" shows a complete and total lack of any and all real knowledge of Indian politics. Why do you insist on trying to speak authoritatively on subjects of which you know almost nothing?

Originally posted by molly bloom

Whoever said it was ? It wasn't a 'society' that did the conquering, by the way, but a commercial company.

Of course. Imperialism had nothing to do with anything at all, did it?

Originally posted by molly bloom

And Warren Hastings and Robert Clive both started out as clerks.

Who cares? They were still SOBs, from our POV.

Originally posted by molly bloom

aneeshm


No I don't. How many Hindu rulers were of African descent, or have been from scheduled or non-scheduled castes ?

None have been of African descent - because Africans were never present in any number in India at all.

The second question is quite interesting.

Krishna (our God) was a cowherd.

The dynasty of the first rulers of a pan-Indian empire started out when a Brahmin political scientist saw the potential to rule in a goatherd - and made him king. This was the dynasty which produced Ashok.

Shivaji, the great Hindu king, was nominally a low caste person - but that doesn't stop him from being almost revered by Hindus for his deeds. And this reverence cuts across all caste and economic and in fact just all lines. He is arguably the most iconic common figure for Hindus today.

Valmiki, the composer of the Ramayana, was a hunter. Within the authentic part of Ramayana itself, you will find that Rama had a low-caste king as a great friend (Guha).

Originally posted by molly bloom

Would a Dalit or a member of a non-scheduled caste be treated as a social equal in 16th Century India in the same way that Thomas Wolsey or Thomas Cranmer were in Tudor England ?

No. However, it is pointless to judge Hindu society at any time it was under Muslim rule, because everything had basically gone to the dogs at that time. All the old institutions had just died due to the effects of the invasion, and nothing new could arise to take its place because of the state suppression of the religion.

Originally posted by molly bloom

Attempting to suggest that caste is 'only' social and doesn't have a religious element is bizarre-



that's the 'Rig-Veda', X.90, verses 11-12.

Now, the Rig Veda is one of the Hindu sacred texts, isn't it ?

It appears your knowledge of the Rig-Veda is sadly lacking. I happen to know that entire hymn by heart, in fact, in the original Sanskrit, and I also know its meaning.

Here is the original:

बराह्मणो.अस्य मुखमासीद बाहू राजन्यः कर्तः |
ऊरूतदस्य यद वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत ||
चन्द्रमा मनसो जातश्चक्षोः सूर्यो अजायत |
मुखादिन्द्रश्चाग्निश्च पराणाद वायुरजायत ||
नाभ्या आसीदन्तरिक्षं शीर्ष्णो दयौः समवर्तत |
पद्भ्यां भूमिर्दिशः शरोत्रात तथा लोकानकल्पयन ||

The richa in question:

THe Brahmin was its mouth, its hands was the Rajanya, its thighs (back, in some interpretations) was the Vaishya, and the Sudra was his feet.

What you significantly fail to mention, however, is that it continues, and in an allegorical manner:

THe moon was made from it's manas (mind), the sun was created from its eyes, from its mouth were Indra and Agni made, from it's life-breath was made the wind. Its navel formed space, its head the sky, from his feet the Earth, and thus were the regions/worlds formed.

It is patently obvious that:

a) There is no mention of any discrimination on the basis of caste,
b) There is no mention of untouchability, and
b) That the whole hymn is an allegory

It is unwise to speak when your knowledge is incomplete or superficial, as it was in this case.

Also, you haven't really addressed the crux of my argument - that caste is, in essence, a social problem. The fact that it was recognised (or, in some cases, sanctioned) by a religious tradition as something which existed in society does not make it a religious problem.

Originally posted by molly bloom

aneeshm

Well, I wonder who promulgates this 'theory' ? Could we have an idea, please ?

Bet they aren't Buddhists, are they ?

No, they aren't. I'll try to find a source.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
shouldn't this be in the history forum?

No, because it has nothing to do with historical fact and everything to do with wishful thinking.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm


This is a stupid statement. Even Indian Christians and Muslims have castes. A man venerated almost as a "Prophet" by the Dalits/Harijans of India, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, wrote that the status of the Muslim lower castes and untouchables was worse than that of the Hindu ones. In Churches, different castes frequently have separate pews. Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs also have castes.

Where do the Christian and Muslim 'castes' originate ?

Within the Christian or Islamic religions ? No. In fact the Koran stresses the social equality of all Muslims before god.

The castes are a holdover from the conversions of large groups of Hindus to Islam and Christianity- as one might expect.

A man venerated almost as a "Prophet" by the Dalits/Harijans of India, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, wrote that the status of the Muslim lower castes and untouchables was worse than that of the Hindu ones.

Then I'm sure you'll be able to show us where he said this.

This statement about "decades" shows a complete and total lack of any and all real knowledge of Indian politics. Why do you insist on trying to speak authoritatively on subjects of which you know almost nothing?

I can't recall specifying that the BJP was the government of the whole of India for decades.

Why do you persist in misquoting me, when clearly comprehension of perfectly simple English is beyond you ?

Here's what I said:

the chauvinist activities of the BJP in the past few decades.

Now having agreed that Dalits couldn't rise in Hindu society in the way that similarly low born members of non-Hindu societies, you proceed to use this excuse:

However, it is pointless to judge Hindu society at any time it was under Muslim rule, because everything had basically gone to the dogs at that time.

Or as it's known:

BLAME THE MUSLIMS!!!!!

What, even in Vijayanagar ?

a) There is no mention of any discrimination on the basis of caste,
b) There is no mention of untouchability, and

Right- because our mouths, feet and hands all perform exactly the SAME tasks, don't they ?

It doesn't have to mention 'untouchability' to be discriminatory. Obviously certain things evolved over time and with consolidation of power.

It is unwise to speak when your knowledge is incomplete or superficial, as it was in this case.

Oh, I agree- in which case we'll hear no more from you on the subject of the Portuguese Inquisition, Western political structures, Christianity, the Spanish in the Americas, et cetera.

b) That the whole hymn is an allegory

Allegory doesn't mean 'whole load of mystic mumbo-jumbo simply to be learned and recited'. An allegory implies that some relationship or object or person is represented or implied by something else. That's all.

Also, you haven't really addressed the crux of my argument - that caste is, in essence, a social problem. The fact that it was recognised (or, in some cases, sanctioned) by a religious tradition as something which existed in society does not make it a religious problem.

In fact I have. Yes, it's a social problem quite obviously, but with its origins in a religion.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Where do the Christian and Muslim 'castes' originate ?

Within the Christian or Islamic religions ? No. In fact the Koran stresses the social equality of all Muslims before god.

The castes are a holdover from the conversions of large groups of Hindus to Islam and Christianity- as one might expect.

You're trying to dodge out of answering the question. I said that it was not essentially a religious problem, otherwise people who converted would have stopped doing it. You haven't addressed this at all. You've simply tried to say that it was because of Hindu influence that casteism exists in other religions. Irrespective of the causes (though I disagree with your assessment of the causes, but I'll let that go), if it exists, then it cannot be in essence a religious problem.

Originally posted by molly bloom

Then I'm sure you'll be able to show us where he said this.

A simply search for the word "Muslim" in the Wiki article on Ambedkar would have been sufficient. Let me quote:

Ambedkar was also critical of Islam and its practices in South Asia. While justifying the Partition of India, he condemned practices of Child-Marriage in Muslim society, as well as the mistreatment of women. He also condemned the caste practices carried out by Muslims in South Asia. He was also critical of slavery in Muslim communities. He said

No words can adequately express the great and many evils of polygamy and concubinage, and especially as a source of misery to a Muslim woman. Take the caste system. Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste.[While slavery existed], much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries. While the prescriptions by the Prophet regarding the just and humane treatment of slaves contained in the Koran are praiseworthy, there is nothing whatever in Islam that lends support to the abolition of this curse. But if slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans [Muslims] has remained.[5][6]"

He wrote that Muslim Society is "even more full of social evils than Hindu Society is" and criticized Muslims for sugarcoating their sectarian Caste System with euphemisms like "brotherhood". He also criticized the discrimination against the Arzal classes among Muslims who were regarded as "degraded", as well as the oppression of women in Muslim society through the oppressive purdah system. He alleged that while Purdah was also practiced by Hindus, only among Muslims was it sanctioned by religion. He criticized their fanaticism regarding Islam on the grounds that their literalist interpretations of Islamic doctrine made their society very rigid and impermeable to change. He further wrote that Indian Muslims have failed to reform their society unlike Muslims in other countries like Turkey[5][6].

He disliked Islam rather intensely, in fact. He held it responsible for destroying Buddhism in India. If you want more material, I'd be happy to provide it.

Originally posted by molly bloom

I can't recall specifying that the BJP was the government of the whole of India for decades.

Nor do I ever recall saying anything to the effect that you made any such specification.

Originally posted by molly bloom

Why do you persist in misquoting me, when clearly comprehension of perfectly simple English is beyond you ?

You forgot a comma.

Originally posted by molly bloom

Here's what I said:

Could you please cite some examples of said chauvinist activities?

Originally posted by molly bloom

Now having agreed that Dalits couldn't rise in Hindu society in the way that similarly low born members of non-Hindu societies, you proceed to use this excuse:




Or as it's known:

BLAME THE MUSLIMS!!!!!

What, even in Vijayanagar ?

Vijaynagar flourished in the 14th to the 16th centuries. The Muslim invasion of India, to which it was a response, started in the 7th century itself. Plenty of time for all sorts of corruption and degeneration and just general stratification (as a response to threat) to set in.

Originally posted by molly bloom

Right- because our mouths, feet and hands all perform exactly the SAME tasks, don't they ?

So you discriminate against your different body parts?

Originally posted by molly bloom

It doesn't have to mention 'untouchability' to be discriminatory. Obviously certain things evolved over time and with consolidation of power.

You (mistakenly) assume that during the Vedic period, caste was hereditary. There is no evidence for anything like that in the Vedas itself. To the contrary, there is a hymn which mentions a change of professions (and thus castes) every generation.

Originally posted by molly bloom

Oh, I agree- in which case we'll hear no more from you on the subject of the Portuguese Inquisition, Western political structures, Christianity, the Spanish in the Americas, et cetera.

I live in a country with Western political structures, I've informally studied Christianity and I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong. You, on the other hand, assume an arrogant air of always being right. It is only when we work under such an assumption that we should shut up about things of which we know not the all.

Originally posted by molly bloom

Allegory doesn't mean 'whole load of mystic mumbo-jumbo simply to be learned and recited'. An allegory implies that some relationship or object or person is represented or implied by something else. That's all.

That is correct. So what is the point again?

Originally posted by molly bloom

In fact I have. Yes, it's a social problem quite obviously, but with its origins in a religion.

I'd say it's the other way around. Caste existed first as a social institution, which later was given religious sanction.