-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Prejudice against Hinduism
- Thread starter Surya Deva
- Start date
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
The above contains FOUR claims regarding pre-colonial India
1. India having enormous material wealth
2. India having a high literacy rate
3. India's export production being put into Britain Industrial revolution
4. India's current social problems of having an economic root, originating around colonial and Islamic times.
1)
16TH CENTURY:
At the close of the sixteenth century, India?s wealth sustained more
than a hundred million people. There was an abundance of arable land
and the state of Indian agriculture compared favourably with any of
the western European countries. Right down to the subsistence-oriented
peasant, everyone saw a good return on land and labour. There was a
large and vigorous skilled workforce turning out not just cotton but
luxury items for the barons, courts and ruling classes. Consequently,
the economy produced a fabulous financial surplus. For example, the
annual revenues of the Moghul emperor Aurangzeb (1659-1701) are said
to have amounted to $450 million or more than ten times those of his
contemporary Louis XIV of France. According to an estimate of 1638,
the Moghul court of India had accumulated a treasure equivalent to
$1.5 billion. By the early eighteenth century, India was the leading
manufacturing country in the world. Of course, ?manufacturing? then
meant handloom textiles and handicrafts. The economist Angus Maddison
states that India, at that time, had a 22.6 per cent share of the
world?s GDP. Paul Bairoch confirms that it had a 25 per cent share of
the global trade in textiles. ?More important,? he writes, ?there was
a large commercialized sector with a highly sophisticated market and
credit structure, manned by a skilful and in many instances very
wealthy commercial class.? Methods of production and of industrial and
commercial organization could stand comparison with those in vogue in
any other part of the world. India had developed an indigenous banking
system. Merchant capital had emerged with an elaborate network of
agents, brokers and middlemen. Its bills of exchange were honoured in
all the major cities of Asia."
Source: Google Answers: Was India Once the Richest Nation in the World?
1 - 10TH CENTURY:
According to economic historian Angus Maddison in his book The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, India had the world's largest economy in the 1st century and 11th century, with a 32.9% share of world GDP in the 1st century and 28.9% in 1000 CE.
Economic history of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
India accounted for 32.9% of the world economy from 1CE to 10AD, a share significantly greater than the share of US today. This means even during the times of the Roman Empire and the Isalmic Empire, India was still by the far the most wealthiest country in the world. By todays term it was a superpower. It is interesting to note that it's share came down to just below 20% during Mughal rule and below 10% during British rule. When it gained independence it was below 5%.
Therefore it could be easily be said Hindu rule brought about incredible material weath and economic prosperity in India through efficient production, trade and exploitation and utilization of resources, and unlike other countries, not through war.
The decline in its wealth began during its invasions.
I will cover other claims in subsequent posts.
1. India having enormous material wealth
2. India having a high literacy rate
3. India's export production being put into Britain Industrial revolution
4. India's current social problems of having an economic root, originating around colonial and Islamic times.
1)
16TH CENTURY:
At the close of the sixteenth century, India?s wealth sustained more
than a hundred million people. There was an abundance of arable land
and the state of Indian agriculture compared favourably with any of
the western European countries. Right down to the subsistence-oriented
peasant, everyone saw a good return on land and labour. There was a
large and vigorous skilled workforce turning out not just cotton but
luxury items for the barons, courts and ruling classes. Consequently,
the economy produced a fabulous financial surplus. For example, the
annual revenues of the Moghul emperor Aurangzeb (1659-1701) are said
to have amounted to $450 million or more than ten times those of his
contemporary Louis XIV of France. According to an estimate of 1638,
the Moghul court of India had accumulated a treasure equivalent to
$1.5 billion. By the early eighteenth century, India was the leading
manufacturing country in the world. Of course, ?manufacturing? then
meant handloom textiles and handicrafts. The economist Angus Maddison
states that India, at that time, had a 22.6 per cent share of the
world?s GDP. Paul Bairoch confirms that it had a 25 per cent share of
the global trade in textiles. ?More important,? he writes, ?there was
a large commercialized sector with a highly sophisticated market and
credit structure, manned by a skilful and in many instances very
wealthy commercial class.? Methods of production and of industrial and
commercial organization could stand comparison with those in vogue in
any other part of the world. India had developed an indigenous banking
system. Merchant capital had emerged with an elaborate network of
agents, brokers and middlemen. Its bills of exchange were honoured in
all the major cities of Asia."
Source: Google Answers: Was India Once the Richest Nation in the World?
1 - 10TH CENTURY:
According to economic historian Angus Maddison in his book The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, India had the world's largest economy in the 1st century and 11th century, with a 32.9% share of world GDP in the 1st century and 28.9% in 1000 CE.
Economic history of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
India accounted for 32.9% of the world economy from 1CE to 10AD, a share significantly greater than the share of US today. This means even during the times of the Roman Empire and the Isalmic Empire, India was still by the far the most wealthiest country in the world. By todays term it was a superpower. It is interesting to note that it's share came down to just below 20% during Mughal rule and below 10% during British rule. When it gained independence it was below 5%.
Therefore it could be easily be said Hindu rule brought about incredible material weath and economic prosperity in India through efficient production, trade and exploitation and utilization of resources, and unlike other countries, not through war.
The decline in its wealth began during its invasions.
I will cover other claims in subsequent posts.
Last edited by a moderator:
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
2)
During British times(18-19th century)
British records show that indigenous education was widespread in the 18th century, with a school for every temple, mosque or village in most regions of the country. The subjects taught included Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Theology, Law, Astronomy, Metaphysics, Ethics, Medical Science and Religion. The schools were attended by students representative of all classes of society. Printed books were introduced in India by 1579.[1] Pre-British schools and colleges were maintained by grants of revenue-free land. The East India Company, with its policy of maximizing land revenue, stopped this and thus starved the Indian education system of its financial resources.
The current system of education, with its western style and content, was introduced & funded by the British in the 19th century, following recommendations by Macaulay. Traditional structures were not recognized by the British government and have been on the decline since. Gandhi is said to have described the traditional educational system as a beautiful tree that was destroyed during British rule
1-10TH CENTURY CE:
The first millennium and the few centuries preceding it saw the flourishing of higher education at Nalanda, Takshila, Ujjain, & Vikramshila Universities. Art, Architecture, Painting, Logic, mathematics, Grammar, Philosophy, Astronomy, Literature, Buddhism, Hinduism, Arthashastra (Economics & Politics), Law, and Medicine were among the subjects taught and each university specialized in a particular field of study. Takshila specialized in the study of medicine, while Ujjain laid emphasis on astronomy. Nalanda, being the biggest centre, handled all branches of knowledge, and housed up to 10,000 students at its peak.
BEFORE THE COMMON ERA:
India has a long history of organized education. The Gurukul system of education is one of the oldest on earth but before that the guru shishya system was extant, in which students were taught orally and the data would be passed from one generation to the next. Gurukuls were traditional Hindu residential schools of learning; typically the teacher's house or a monastery. Education was free (and often limited to the higher castes), but students from well-to-do families paid Gurudakshina, a voluntary contribution after the completion of their studies. At the Gurukuls, the teacher imparted knowledge of Religion, Scriptures, Philosophy, Literature, Warfare, Statecraft, mathematics, Medicine, Astrology and "History" ("Itihaas").
Source: History of education in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Therefore Hindu rule produced the most literate civilisation in the world right from ancient times up until the 18th century. Its decline began with Muslim Invasions which destroyed all its universities and centres of learning, and then later the British, which outlawed its educational systems, then created a Western style education system for the elite creating the problem of rampant illiteracy in India. India at the time of independence was 90%+ illiterate.
During British times(18-19th century)
British records show that indigenous education was widespread in the 18th century, with a school for every temple, mosque or village in most regions of the country. The subjects taught included Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Theology, Law, Astronomy, Metaphysics, Ethics, Medical Science and Religion. The schools were attended by students representative of all classes of society. Printed books were introduced in India by 1579.[1] Pre-British schools and colleges were maintained by grants of revenue-free land. The East India Company, with its policy of maximizing land revenue, stopped this and thus starved the Indian education system of its financial resources.
The current system of education, with its western style and content, was introduced & funded by the British in the 19th century, following recommendations by Macaulay. Traditional structures were not recognized by the British government and have been on the decline since. Gandhi is said to have described the traditional educational system as a beautiful tree that was destroyed during British rule
1-10TH CENTURY CE:
The first millennium and the few centuries preceding it saw the flourishing of higher education at Nalanda, Takshila, Ujjain, & Vikramshila Universities. Art, Architecture, Painting, Logic, mathematics, Grammar, Philosophy, Astronomy, Literature, Buddhism, Hinduism, Arthashastra (Economics & Politics), Law, and Medicine were among the subjects taught and each university specialized in a particular field of study. Takshila specialized in the study of medicine, while Ujjain laid emphasis on astronomy. Nalanda, being the biggest centre, handled all branches of knowledge, and housed up to 10,000 students at its peak.
BEFORE THE COMMON ERA:
India has a long history of organized education. The Gurukul system of education is one of the oldest on earth but before that the guru shishya system was extant, in which students were taught orally and the data would be passed from one generation to the next. Gurukuls were traditional Hindu residential schools of learning; typically the teacher's house or a monastery. Education was free (and often limited to the higher castes), but students from well-to-do families paid Gurudakshina, a voluntary contribution after the completion of their studies. At the Gurukuls, the teacher imparted knowledge of Religion, Scriptures, Philosophy, Literature, Warfare, Statecraft, mathematics, Medicine, Astrology and "History" ("Itihaas").
Source: History of education in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Therefore Hindu rule produced the most literate civilisation in the world right from ancient times up until the 18th century. Its decline began with Muslim Invasions which destroyed all its universities and centres of learning, and then later the British, which outlawed its educational systems, then created a Western style education system for the elite creating the problem of rampant illiteracy in India. India at the time of independence was 90%+ illiterate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
3) It should be understood by now that India was the wealthiest country in the world in terms of its economy and production. It was also very heavily industralized and was systematically de-industralized by the British, and its produce was used to fuel Britain's industrial revolution:
Industry
Industry
- <LI class=MsoNormal>Around 1800 India had 15-20 lakh weavers with mining being major industrial activity. Due to British policies by 1820 Indian industry was on its knees.
- There are accounts of the Indian process of making steel which was called ‘wootz’. The British experts who examined samples of ‘wootz’ sent to them by one Dr. Helenus Scott have commented that it is decidedly superior compared in any other steel they have seen.
- Incidentally, modern plastic surgery in Britain is stated by its inventor to have been derived from and developed after the observation and study of the Indian practice from 1790 onwards.
- <LI class=MsoNormal>Because of the British desire to invest newly acquired British capital, a new structure of industrialization began to be established in various parts of India, especially round Calcutta and Bombay, by about 1880.
<LI class=MsoNormal>The larger proportion of the historical and traditional professionals of Indian Industry however, even today, work outside the modern industrial complex, and mostly work individually and on their own. In the idiom of today they would form a fairly large proportion of the ‘Backward’ and ‘Other Backward’ castes. - According to current findings the India-China region produced around 73 per cent of the industrial manufactures of the world around 1750.
- Cloth was manufactured in practically all the 400 districts. Many districts of south India had 10,000 to 20,000 looms in each district even around 1810. Also India had some 10,000 furnaces for the manufacture of iron and steel. Indian steel was considered of very high quality and in the early decades of the nineteenth century, it was being used by the British for the making of surgical instruments.
ax0547
Sat Sri Akal
HAHA - awesome coment man - TRUE THAT
:clap
ax0547
Sat Sri Akal
yoU WANT ME PROVIDE some exmaples of acceptance of caste system in your holy books - here too! leme know
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Again, as I said in the other thread, we all belong to the Dharmic family of religions Ax. Do you know how much the Sikh Gurus worshipped Hinduism, admired it, respected it. If you defame Hinduism, you actually don't realise you defame your own religion which is based on it.
I don't mind a discussion on the caste system or on practices like Sati. I never hide away from what is true. But if you want it, lets discuss it in a friendly matter
Realise that were on both on the same sides. I, nor any good Hindu accepts caste system oppression or Sati. But you do wrong by pinning it down on Hinduism. Should I pin down Khalistan separatists on Sikhism? Or the oppression of Sikh women in Sikh families Sikhism? What about the fact that many Sikhs are alcoholics? What about the Sikh caste system, my friend - chamaar, khatri, tarkaan and jats?
I don't mind a discussion on the caste system or on practices like Sati. I never hide away from what is true. But if you want it, lets discuss it in a friendly matter
Realise that were on both on the same sides. I, nor any good Hindu accepts caste system oppression or Sati. But you do wrong by pinning it down on Hinduism. Should I pin down Khalistan separatists on Sikhism? Or the oppression of Sikh women in Sikh families Sikhism? What about the fact that many Sikhs are alcoholics? What about the Sikh caste system, my friend - chamaar, khatri, tarkaan and jats?
Last edited by a moderator:
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend suraj,
Accept your thoughts and frubals for it.
Once again understand that when you state:
You are still in THOUGHTS, it is only thoughts that drives people away from that WHOLE.
Meditation is all about STILLING the THOUGHTS. Truth appears only when one is in no-thoughts state.
Besides there is an *I* which is thinking. Only in the meditative state does that gap between the *I* and the whole merges and one simply *IS* like TRUTH IS state.
Meditate over it.
Love & rgds
Accept your thoughts and frubals for it.
Once again understand that when you state:
You are still in THOUGHTS, it is only thoughts that drives people away from that WHOLE.
Meditation is all about STILLING the THOUGHTS. Truth appears only when one is in no-thoughts state.
Besides there is an *I* which is thinking. Only in the meditative state does that gap between the *I* and the whole merges and one simply *IS* like TRUTH IS state.
Meditate over it.
Love & rgds
Makaveli
Homoioi
Suraj, do you not know that Hindus as a social group have been systematically discriminating against Sikhs for years now? You can argue that it is only the government doing it, but India is, as my Sikh friend says, "Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan." Human Rights watch has said that, and I quote,
"In 1999, Human Rights Watch declared, "Virtually everyone detained in Punjab is tortured." Common documented methods of torture by police authorities include: severe beatings; gang raping of women; application of electric shocks to genitals and extremities; inserting an iron rod onto which chili paste has been applied into the rectum; badly burning skin, often with hot iron rods; forcing apart hips, sometimes to 180 degrees, for prolonged periods; rolling heavy logs over legs to permanently destroy muscles; and immersion into foul water until near suffocation. These methods apply to members of all of India's victimized communities"
And this occurs in a modern country! But yet, we never hear of it. As the saying goes, do not complain about the splinter in your neighbor's eye until you remove the plank in your own.
"In 1999, Human Rights Watch declared, "Virtually everyone detained in Punjab is tortured." Common documented methods of torture by police authorities include: severe beatings; gang raping of women; application of electric shocks to genitals and extremities; inserting an iron rod onto which chili paste has been applied into the rectum; badly burning skin, often with hot iron rods; forcing apart hips, sometimes to 180 degrees, for prolonged periods; rolling heavy logs over legs to permanently destroy muscles; and immersion into foul water until near suffocation. These methods apply to members of all of India's victimized communities"
And this occurs in a modern country! But yet, we never hear of it. As the saying goes, do not complain about the splinter in your neighbor's eye until you remove the plank in your own.
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Makavali,
Do you know that America being a Christian country has the highest amount of crime rates in the world, the world largest pornography industry, high incidents of domestic violence and dysfunctional families, and the most warmongering country in the world?
I could follow your rationale and pin it down on Christians, but I won't, because I know it is a socio-economic problem not a Christian problem. There is no sanction for it in Christianity, in Jesus's teaching of peace. Similarly, problems India is facing are not Hindu problems, they are socio-economic problems. I hope you appreciate India has been ravaged and brutalized for 1000 years, Hindus have been facing constant and relentless persecution. They've only just had independence for 60 years. Do you really expect India to solve a millenias of social problems like caste oppression, dowry deaths so soon? India has done a lot by the way to tackle these problems and their incidence has come down considerably. Now they are isolated rural problems. Yes, more work needs to be done, but so does it need to be done everywhere in the world. The problems America's faces are no less significant than India's problems. It faces huge problems like crime, debt, family dysfunctionalism.
Let us encourage each other to solve our problems than condemn each other. Please let us not generalise the social problems of our countries to our religions.
Do you know that America being a Christian country has the highest amount of crime rates in the world, the world largest pornography industry, high incidents of domestic violence and dysfunctional families, and the most warmongering country in the world?
I could follow your rationale and pin it down on Christians, but I won't, because I know it is a socio-economic problem not a Christian problem. There is no sanction for it in Christianity, in Jesus's teaching of peace. Similarly, problems India is facing are not Hindu problems, they are socio-economic problems. I hope you appreciate India has been ravaged and brutalized for 1000 years, Hindus have been facing constant and relentless persecution. They've only just had independence for 60 years. Do you really expect India to solve a millenias of social problems like caste oppression, dowry deaths so soon? India has done a lot by the way to tackle these problems and their incidence has come down considerably. Now they are isolated rural problems. Yes, more work needs to be done, but so does it need to be done everywhere in the world. The problems America's faces are no less significant than India's problems. It faces huge problems like crime, debt, family dysfunctionalism.
Let us encourage each other to solve our problems than condemn each other. Please let us not generalise the social problems of our countries to our religions.
Makaveli
Homoioi
America is not a Christian nation, it is a nation that is mainly composed of Christians. We have worked very hard as a people to keep religion out of the law, and the law out of religion. That is why all these actions occur, because we are not mandated to follow any religious law.
Yes, it is a socio-economic problem, but discrimination against a minority by a majority is a problem fueled by dominant society and its dominant religion, in this case Hinduism. That is not to say that Hinduism itself is bad, because it isn't, but saying that it has no role in persecution of minority groups is folly. For example, the dominant culture in Saudi Arabia is Islam-derived, ergo the dominant religion is Islam. The culture mandates the wearing of headscarves, reinforced by the mandate of the religion. Such things are not always intertwined, but in these cases they are.
The Irish have had independence for almost ninety years, and by your logic should be in complete poverty and with a variety of social ills because it had been subjugated for 700 years by the English. Instead, Dublin is the most expensive city in the world to live in, and Ireland is known as the "Celtic Tiger" for having one of the strongest economies in Europe. Simply because they have had not had a long time to correct their own social ills does not absolve Hindu society of the wrongs it has committed against its minorities. Would you absolve America of its actions against the Indians, because we were a young nation at the time? The rationale does not work.
I'm not saying that the problems should disappear overnight, but again, that does not absolve one of committing crimes.
I am not condemning you, merely pointing out some things. Read above for my points.
ax0547
Sat Sri Akal
Again, as I said in the other thread, we all belong to the Dharmic family of religions Ax. Do you know how much the Sikh Gurus worshipped Hinduism, admired it, respected it. If you defame Hinduism, you actually don't realise you defame your own religion which is based on it.
I don't mind a discussion on the caste system or on practices like Sati. I never hide away from what is true. But if you want it, lets discuss it in a friendly matter
COOL man let eevryone know it. Please post anything and everyting you think is not ok in sikhism - want to know too. Now let me remind you, there is difference between religion and culture. point out anything from religious principles or even the holy book. Now if someone says he/she is sikh and doesn't follow the principles - that's diff and Wrong, but doesn't make the principles/relgion wrong. Anything and everyting - provide evidence/examples please!
Also so what if muslisms did wrong to us, but that doesn't mean Islam is wrong. Dude we have muslims saints words i our holy book. Golden Temple's first brick was laid down by a muslim. Guru Nanak's best friend was a muslim. Not say that I don't have disagreement with some Islamic principle's, but I'd look into my plate first and then comment on other's.
Soory I do not accpet your bribe or threat, I abide by truth.
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Well India is not a Hindu nation, it is a nation composed mainly of Hindus. We have also worked very hard to keep religion out of law and we have succeeded to a large extent e.g., we don't have a house of lords where archbishops and the Church still has a say on what policies are passed, as it is the case in the UK. In India, on the contrary, Hindu's are descriminated against by their own government, they have no say. The current Congress government is mainly made up of Christians and Muslims.
You have answered your own point. This has nothing to do with Hinduism, this is a socio-economic problem. In Islam, matters are different, Sharia law is directly derived from Islamic doctrine, so it is not just a socio-economic problem, it is an Islamic problem.
Hinduism does not preach caste oppression, it preaches equal rights to men and women and meritocracy. It does not preach that women should be burnt, it preaches rights for widows to remarry. You cannot pin down something that is absent in Hinduism on Hinduism.
Just as I cannot pin down Crusades, Inquisitions, Holocausts on Christianity, in the New testimant part.
India's problems are not simple, they are complex. They are based on assimilating various cultures over millenias. What we know to be Hinduism of today is heavily influenced by Muslim and Christian influences e.g., there was no tradition of Burkha in Hindu society, but Hindu women today in rural places are told to cover up. This tradition is a Muslim contribution. The tradition of women burning themselves was considered an honourable act because women did not want to fall prey to the lust of Muslim rulers, they preferred burning themselves. The tradition of child-marriage was because Hindu families did not want their women to reach adulthood and become a prey to a Muslim ruler, so they were married of within the cradle itself to secure their future.
This is not a simple issue, it's highly complex one, and pinning it down on Hinduism is intellectually lazy and weak. Just look at India when it was under pure Hindu rule before the invasions of India. It was a remarkably egalitarian and progressive society, excelling in science, technology and culture, and has no equal anywhere else in the world. This is all very well known to historians. As soon as corruption set in with invasions it's decline began.
If you look at a Pure islamic society you have Sharia law. If you look at a pure Hindu society you have meritocracy, high values, freedom and science. Why do you people overlook this aspect of Indian history when it was purely Hindu? Why blame us for the problems Muslims and Christistans introduced and socio-economic circumstances caused?
How many times larger than Ireland is India, my friend? How many times more complex than Ireland, is India my friend? You cannot generalise this simply, Ireland is Ireland, India is India. And if I understand correctly Ireland was ravaged by terrorism only two decades ago? If I understand correctly most of Ireland is rural and villages?
If Ireland in 90 years has become a succesful country, then India in 60 years hasn't done any less. It is widely considered to be a world power today and a rising superpower. Mumbai now has real-state more expensive than Manhatan and Tokoyo. The highest amount of billionaires in the world will in less than a few years be in India. Indian companies are now buying out huge multinational companies - Tetley, Jaguar, Virgin Radio, European steel companies, Spielberg's Dreamworks. The wealth in India today is enormous. Indians are starting to project economic power on the world the the world is yielding. Its huge success in education, science and technology is well known.
Ireland will never have the kind of power India has today or will have in the future. By 2025 the majority of India will be middle-class, by 2040 it will be as big as the USA. Do you know in 200 years of British rule, India did not progress at all? It's economy did not grow, it shrank; its literacy levels did not increase, they decreased dramatically. Indians have shown under self-rule in 70 years just how much potential they have.
You need to start seeing the complexities of the situation. India is not a poor country, it is a country that has poor. They are the result of 200 years of very brutal looting by the British. Today, most of India's backwards castes are yesteryears skilled professionals, who had their livelihood snatched away from them by the British.
The caste system was not oppressive even when the British came. The caste system was a threat to them, because its unique way of structuring society maintained Hindu solidarity and personal enterprise. The highest caste, Brahmins, were highly educated and literate and they especially rejected British and Christian rule. This is why the British demonized them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Interesting, so you want to pin down the caste system and other problems in Hindu society on Hiduism, but not the caste system and other problems in Sikh society on Sikhism?
Do you know how many Sikhs would disagree with you that their persecution has nothing to do with Islam? I wonder if you've ever gone into a Gudwara and seen the pictures of Sikhs and their holy gurus being tortured by Muslims and heard Sikh preachers condemn Islam for it. I know for a fact Sikhs resent Muslims. They were a movement that began in opposition to Muslims.
People like Kabir were not Muslims, they were only born Muslim, they actually denounced their faith. The Sufis were considered heretics.
Makaveli
Homoioi
You didn't even think of responding to my charges about the oppression of religious minorities? That was the original crux of my argument.
I will let the first point rest, but your second point is preposterous. They have a parliamentary democracy, yes? They have a bicameral parliament, yes? The lower house is entirely elected by the people, and is the most powerful; 80/5% of your country is Hindu, and why would a people who can elect their representatives voluntarily elect people who would discriminate against them? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The President is a Hindu, and the Prime minister a Sikh. If the religious majority was being oppressed in their own country the entire world would be hearing about it.
I have not answered my point, because I have said that every social system that is pre-dominantly one group or one religion will be influenced by that group or religion. Just as some of my country's problems are derived from the religious right, India's problems are derived from Hindu adherents. As I said, the religion itself is not the problem, it is the people who follow it.
Religions are defined by those who follow them. If the majority of Hindus do a certain thing, or a majority of Christians, then those religions will be defined by the actions of their followers. Again, I am not criticizing Hinduism as you believe, I am criticizing those who follow it and discriminate and oppress others motivated by their religion.
Dodging the points and not even responding to the actions levied against a subset of the people, not the religion, the people, is intellectually lazy and weak. Again, I am not pinning it on Hinduism but by its interpretation by followers. Do we pin the actions of Christians, or Muslims, or Jews onto their respective religions if they were not within doctrine? No, we rationalize their behaviour as independent of those religions, but likely motivated by them. Islamic terrorists aren't representative of the majority of Muslims, but that does not mean they are not motivated by Islam to carry out their actions.
Also, are you speaking of the Gupta period? It has been compared, and was only a few hundred years after, the period of Greek innovation that brought the Western World democracy, Aristotelian and Platonic ethics, numerous mathematical advances, and so on. Saying it has no equal smacks of supremacism, when there are other periods from across the world that have just as much merit. Greece is only one example; the pre-Columbian periods in America are another.
Again, you misrepresent what I am saying; I never discounted India's advances, only the fact that you rationalized the abhorrent and disgusting behaviour your country has practiced against religious minorities because it has only been independent sixty years. Murder is murder, and Sikhs and other religious minorities have been persecuted by the majority Hindus for many years, it's no secret. I find it telling that you havent even responded to that accusation in your entire post.
And Ireland is only an example. You should also take into account the extremely high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and other social ills. 74% of people live on less than 2 USD a day in India. A handful of Indians may be projecting their wealth on the world stage, but the majority of India lives in abject squalor. Indian cities are some of the dirtiest, most crowded, worst to live in cities in the world. India is not some glittering paradise of promise if only a handful of people are massively wealthy and the vast majority are barely eeking out an existence.
Again, Ireland is but an example that, given any zeal and incentive, a people can pull themselves out of poverty and into prosperity. India will one day be a superpower, but until then it is a country where you can see a Rolls-Royce and a rickshaw side by side on the street. It is a country where 74% of the people live on less than 2 USD a day. If your demographic estimates prove true, then thats great! I hope the Indian people are able to lift themselves out of poverty, as the Irish have.
It is unsurprising that under a brutal occupation they did not progress. That's common sense.
Because I gave you an example you find to be simple does not mean I do not see the other facets of the situation in India today. Their ancestors may have been skilled and respected, but that does not change the fact that the caste system has been used to keep the poorest people down and the richest people up.
I don't know enough about Indian history to comment on the past incarnations of the caste system, but any system that stunts social mobility, that keeps those who want to mingle from mingling, that keeps the poorest poor and the richest rich, is an immoral and evil system. A Brahmin must "purify" him or herself if he or she even gets in the shadow of an untouchable. This idiotic superstition about greater and lesser people is detrimental to society.
I will let the first point rest, but your second point is preposterous. They have a parliamentary democracy, yes? They have a bicameral parliament, yes? The lower house is entirely elected by the people, and is the most powerful; 80/5% of your country is Hindu, and why would a people who can elect their representatives voluntarily elect people who would discriminate against them? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The President is a Hindu, and the Prime minister a Sikh. If the religious majority was being oppressed in their own country the entire world would be hearing about it.
I have not answered my point, because I have said that every social system that is pre-dominantly one group or one religion will be influenced by that group or religion. Just as some of my country's problems are derived from the religious right, India's problems are derived from Hindu adherents. As I said, the religion itself is not the problem, it is the people who follow it.
Religions are defined by those who follow them. If the majority of Hindus do a certain thing, or a majority of Christians, then those religions will be defined by the actions of their followers. Again, I am not criticizing Hinduism as you believe, I am criticizing those who follow it and discriminate and oppress others motivated by their religion.
Dodging the points and not even responding to the actions levied against a subset of the people, not the religion, the people, is intellectually lazy and weak. Again, I am not pinning it on Hinduism but by its interpretation by followers. Do we pin the actions of Christians, or Muslims, or Jews onto their respective religions if they were not within doctrine? No, we rationalize their behaviour as independent of those religions, but likely motivated by them. Islamic terrorists aren't representative of the majority of Muslims, but that does not mean they are not motivated by Islam to carry out their actions.
Also, are you speaking of the Gupta period? It has been compared, and was only a few hundred years after, the period of Greek innovation that brought the Western World democracy, Aristotelian and Platonic ethics, numerous mathematical advances, and so on. Saying it has no equal smacks of supremacism, when there are other periods from across the world that have just as much merit. Greece is only one example; the pre-Columbian periods in America are another.
Again, you misrepresent what I am saying; I never discounted India's advances, only the fact that you rationalized the abhorrent and disgusting behaviour your country has practiced against religious minorities because it has only been independent sixty years. Murder is murder, and Sikhs and other religious minorities have been persecuted by the majority Hindus for many years, it's no secret. I find it telling that you havent even responded to that accusation in your entire post.
And Ireland is only an example. You should also take into account the extremely high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and other social ills. 74% of people live on less than 2 USD a day in India. A handful of Indians may be projecting their wealth on the world stage, but the majority of India lives in abject squalor. Indian cities are some of the dirtiest, most crowded, worst to live in cities in the world. India is not some glittering paradise of promise if only a handful of people are massively wealthy and the vast majority are barely eeking out an existence.
Again, Ireland is but an example that, given any zeal and incentive, a people can pull themselves out of poverty and into prosperity. India will one day be a superpower, but until then it is a country where you can see a Rolls-Royce and a rickshaw side by side on the street. It is a country where 74% of the people live on less than 2 USD a day. If your demographic estimates prove true, then thats great! I hope the Indian people are able to lift themselves out of poverty, as the Irish have.
It is unsurprising that under a brutal occupation they did not progress. That's common sense.
Because I gave you an example you find to be simple does not mean I do not see the other facets of the situation in India today
. Their ancestors may have been skilled and respected, but that does not change the fact that the caste system has been used to keep the poorest people down and the richest people up. I don't know enough about Indian history to comment on the past incarnations of the caste system, but any system that stunts social mobility, that keeps those who want to mingle from mingling, that keeps the poorest poor and the richest rich, is an immoral and evil system. A Brahmin must "purify" him or herself if he or she even gets in the shadow of an untouchable. This idiotic superstition about greater and lesser people is detrimental to society.
ax0547
Sat Sri Akal
Dude society is different and religion is different. I mean there are muslim born who do not in totality practice Islam,and so there are Hindu's and Christians. The debate should be on what is permisible according to religious principle's. Hindu holy books are in actuallity for caste system and all sati and all the rest. I have already given you the examples. Provide if any from our holy book and then critise Sikhism.
Also, yes there are problems in our society in that people don't follow all the principle's but choose what they like. Specifically, The word Sikh means learner, and most of these learners are drived from society that is predominantly infulened by majority hindu system, or other systems, or not even religion but other social problems like drugs addicts etc. So they are learning towards being "Sikh". Once they have learned enough, that they know they can abide by the strict rules of being sikh, they can initiate into Khalsa, which essentialy are also Sikhs who have learned to a certain level, i.e. they are "the Sikh", that a Sikh is ought to be.
Dude you are totally biased. Sikhism is not a movement against Islam, but certain people used Islam agianst us. Now that might be something to look into the principles of Islam, but to condemn a muslim to following a certian path is wrong, one should always hear the other side too. Now if AURENGHJEB, swore upon Quran and then lied, that does not make QURAN wrong, that makes him worng. Our war was never against Islam, but the Mughal regime of that time. Additioanlly, we had muslim soldiers in our army fighting against Mughal king, That also in the Khalsa Army. The picture's are part of our history. Additionaly, what good did you hindu's do to us in 1984. Massacre of innocents, and like cowards hide. What about this, should I now start saying that every Hindu is like that or that HInduism permits. No I know Hinduism does not, that was social under the cover of religion. Hindu principles do not say to massacre people. Though there might be other princples that can be discussed upon.
Ok I agree that they denounced their religion, but Mardana Ji was Muslim, so was Baba Farid Ji, and so on. Another example: You know that after Aurenghzeb died, Guru Gobind Singh fought to make Aurenghzeb's son the next king. Well, he was a muslim too, but did not misuse Islam, what about this, even though Guru's sons were bricked alive by the regieme. That is because he did not dicriminate agaist Islam, but he was against people who use Islam for their own means.
:sikh:Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!:sikh:
Last edited:
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Are you talking about Indian parliament here or British parliament? It is a fact that the Church still plays a role in influencing policies in the Britain.
You tell me. Why would Indians elect an Italian born Catholic as their Prime minister? In which other country would a foreign born national and of a foreign religion be elected? It happens only in India. Although Sonia Ghandi stepped down from the post, she still runs the show in the Congress party. It is due to Congress that India has made very slow progress. It is a highly corrupt party with anti-Hindu policies. Since Sonia Ghandi coming into power, as many 5 Christian chief ministers have been elected in Indian states, hundreds of Churches are being built and Christian missionary activity is becoming rampant. In Hindu's own country propoganda is spread against them.
I am not sure why you should have heard of this. If you're not aware of Indian politics, then obviously you wouldn't have heard of this. Since when was Indian politics the main topic of Western media?
An interesting choice of words - some of your countries problems are derived from religions, while(all) of India's problems are derived from Hinduism. Look India's problems are economic, no different to any country developing country. It is not something which can be pinned down on religion. Likewise, Americas problems such as debt is a social problem, it cannot be pinned down on Christianity.
That is a faulty definition. The follower is not constituted of religion alone, they are a more complex entity who have formed of socio-economic circumstances, beliefs, traditions, upbringing, personal lifestyle. I cannot generalise porongraphy which is rampant in America to Christians because of its 90% Christians, because pornography is not sanctioned in Christian religion. A religion is defined in terms of its philosophy, tenets and practices, not by its followers.
Should I generalise Aum Shanti cult that that were behind terror attacks in Tokoyo subways to Buddhism? No, because Buddhism has no sanction for it. Perhaps I should generalise the actions of some Christian preists who molest children to Christianity? Again no.
I think you are just refusing to see complex issues as complex. Indeed complex issues require a lot more thought and analysis, maybe that is why...
No, before the Gupta period and even before the Greek period. Indias achieved a level of excellence in science, technology and culture which is comparable to the modern age. Look at the history of Indian civilisation from 4000BCE to 1BCE. In 4000BCE they had planned cities, underground sanitation, plumbing, roads, standardized measurements, decimal systems, middle-class societies - known as the Indus Valley civilisation. There was no civilisation like it even far into modern times.
In 1000BCE they had complete systems of medicine and health care, political, educational and economic systems, highly developed schools of philosophy, arts and sciences, developed to the same extent as modern ones. This was much before the Greeks. They had universities, hospitals. There is no known parallel to it: Read my thread, "Hindu Science"
Hindus have been persecuted themselves. This is not a Hindu problem, or a Sikh problem or a Muslim problem, it is an Indian problem. It is a developing country. Moreover you exaggerate how much of a problem it is. Indians by large live in a relative peace with one another, it is a multicultural society, formed of hundreds of languages, various cultures and sub-cultures. It's highly complex. India is a developing country so bringing everything within harmony in such a complex country is not trivial and nor can it be done so soon.
India suffers from as many problems as other countries do. Look at America it's on the brink of collapsing today. Come on, let's not play these blame games and try to make it look like either of our countries have more or less problems. Every country has problems.
A handful? India has a larger middle class population than the entire population of America at some 300+ million It's middle class is set to become a majority by 2025, that isn't too far away i.e. You also exaggerate the poverty, 25% live below the national poverty line, not 75%. In a country of 1 billion people 25% is a huge number of a poor people, but don't distort the number of poor in India. Do you know India's economy is the fourth largest in the world(PPP)? India is by no means a poor country. I suggest you visit Delhi or Mumbai today and see the rapid development in these cities. My cousin has no qualifications, he works as an ordinary clerk, he is poor and lives in a down trodden part of Delhi, and he makes rs10,000 a month. This is the kind of salary even the poorer class are making in India, about $250 a month, which in purchasing parity terms to the dollar is equivalent of $1000. Not bad for somebody who has no qualfications.
I know Indians on average of low incomes, but that is the same in any developing country., includng China. Besides how can you blame Indians for poverty, they were the richest country in the world before the British came and looted it and rendered everyone poor. When India gained independence about 90% of it was in abject poverty. To go from 90% abject poverty to a majority middle-class population in 2025 with the highest number of billionaires in the world is no mean feat.
The poorest poor and richest rich? Sounds a bit like capitalist class-system to me. Even during British times, the caste-system wasn't this evil system. It was demonized because the caste-system was a highly efficient and succesful system and promoted individual enterprises. It opposed the Western capitalist system, so it was demonized. Like communism is demonized today.
Makaveli
Homoioi
Yes, the House of Lords, which has continually been depleted of their power for years now. They don't even make policy decisions anymore.
The Indian Prime Minister is a Sikh, I don't know where you're get the drivel about a foreign-born Catholic PM. I doubt the veracity of these statements you are making in the above paragraph.
So far, the only problem I have pinned down on Hindu adherents has been the oppression of the Sikhs and other religious minorities.
Perhaps to you, but it is people who create religions and people who change them. If the followers decide to take on certain traditions, rituals, et cetera eventually the religion changes to accommodate this. Therefore, the religion changes, slowly over time, to take on new beliefs of its adherents. You talk of complexity but it seems that you see religion as completely unchanging, when that is far from the truth. Do you think that Hinduism practiced three thousand years ago is the same as Hinduism today? Religions change because those who follow it will it so. For example, Christianity equalled Catholicism almost exclusively for 1600 years until the Protestant Reformation, where individuals created new sects and additional beliefs revolving around central Christian tenets.
Saying pornography is a Christian problem is not true, since it is not made by or propagated by them. Oppression of religious minorities by a Hindu majority is a Hindu problem.
There are no generalizations going on besides the ones you think you see. I have never generalized Hinduism, yet you continue to assert that I do, and then question my intelligence because I am not in line with your opinion.
You are just proving my own point when you bring these examples up: followers of religions motivated by the tenets or the limitations of their own beliefs to commit heinous acts. In this case, the Buddhist cult Aum SHINRIKYO carried out attacks either to hasten the apocalypse (motivated by their religion) or because of an unfavorable realty ruling against them (motivated by the typical unsavory tendencies of cult leaders). Catholic priests molested children because Catholicism forbids priests from marrying, again this is provoked by religion. And, again, these religions do not commit these actions, but their followers take the principles or the limitations set forth and twist them. It is endemic to all belief systems.
So the Indus Valley Civilization then? Your dates are off, as common scholarly opinion places the Mature Harappan period as starting c. 2600 BC. No matter, it's a bit like apples and oranges when comparing two societies that evolved independently from each other.
Oh come on! Let me take your paragraph, and replace some words:
White people have been persecuted themselves. This is not a white problem, or a black problem or a Native American problem, it is an American problem. It is a developing country. Moreover you exaggerate how much of a problem it is. Americans by large live in a relative peace with one another, it is a multicultural society, formed of multiple of languages, various cultures and sub-cultures. It's highly complex. America is a developing country so bringing everything within harmony in such a complex country is not trivial and nor can it be done so soon.
If I replace all the words in your paragraph to reflect the conditions that America was in during its early independence, then perhaps you will respect my opinion when I say that Sikhs, Muslims, Christians and other religious minorities are being persecuted by the majority, which are Hindus.
Makaveli
Homoioi
I'm not playing games, I'm telling you who is to blame for the persecution of religious minorities in India and you are not listening, instead blindly defending the Hindu majority when they are guilty of this./COLOR]
Yes, the national poverty line. 74% live under 2 USD per day, and 32% under 1 USD per day. Thats from the Human Development report of the years between 1990-2005. You accuse me of distorting the numbers? Please, you have been the only person doing so. Why don't you go to Chennai, and see the long lines for tuberculosis treatment, or to any of the plethora of slums in India and see the squalor Indians live in. Your country has more poor people than America has people at all! Your country is advancing, but it is not anything close to a 1st-world country, not by a longshot.
China has less than 35% living under 2 USD, and 10% live under 1 USD. That is less than half of India's current rate. You consistently talk of blame when the only blaming finger is being cast against those who have actually done something immoral.
Are you denying what goes on in modern India, the discrimination faced by so-called "Untouchables", as well as the lower caste system. Any system that stifles social mobility based on genetics, which one cannot even choose, is a terrible, evil, and immoral system. Communism is demonized because leaders, inspired by Communist ideals, stifled liberty, oppressed and murdered citizens, conquered and subjugated nations not under their control, and in the 20th century leaders and countries inspired by Communism has killed over 100 million people. Communism, and the caste system, should see nothing but condemnation.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
No denying that Hinduism has been greatly misrepresented. That in and of itself, however, does not constitute "phobia."
A little background information of which you may not be aware:
This started in a thread about how both Christianity and Islam came out of Judaism, and how numerically successful they've been. Some people, including myself, attributed much of the success to "imperialism" and forced conversions. Some Muslims disagreed. The thread then degenerated into "Islam is an inherently violent religion" etc. with Suraj being one of the most vocal critics.
I will note that during the course of this argument Suraj referred to Islam as "primitive" and not to be compared with an "enlightened" religion such as Hinduism. He also complained about how unfair it was that minority religions, such as Islam, were protected in India.
In response to what I perceived to be an attack on Islam, no longer within the bounds of the original discussion, I argued that no religion is free from violence and pointed to the caste system as an example in Hinduism. I hope you will believe me that I was not trying to condemn Hinduism. I said repeatedly in the thread that I recognize Hinduism as a great religion and that the caste system is but a small and disputed part of it, and that a valid argument could be made that its causes are social more than religious. But, I argued, the same things can be said of Islam.
Suraj argued that I do not know enough about Hinduism and therefore had no right to criticize. I said, that's fine, and I would gladly stop critiquing Hinduism if he would agree to stop critiquing Islam. He argued that the two were not the same. At which point additional people started pointing out his inconsistencies to him.
At which point he created a new thread specifically on the caste system, to where the ongoing argument expanded, encompassing both threads. During this escalation, Suraj started to complain that people were attacking him "just because he's Hindu." He persisted in this claim despite several people saying that this was not the case. It seemed to me that the fact that people were arguing with him served to confirm in his mind that he was being persecuted.
At which point he created this thread. I tend to think that it was not a coincidence.
And Jay, being one of the participants in the previous threads, probably did not think it was a coincidence either. I suggest that Jay's seemingly "unsympathetic" response to claims of "Hindu-phobia" should be viewed in this context. :namaste