Ram Navami Triggers A Saffron Surge In Bengal

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Atleast someone was trying. 

As for the last couple of generations - nope, we haven't. But if you are gonna judge us for the last 2 generations, what does it say about the Hindi belt, which outnumbers the Bengali belt by more than 2:1 and we still had to lead the way for over a hundred years (that is atleast 5 generations by old time standards of having kids by 20) ?? 

 

As for the bolded part - atleast Netaji was trying the alternative, which is kicking Brits off of India. SC Bose, you realize, had the same academic trajectory as a brilliant scientist but gave it up to fight for freedom ? Guy was a 100x more academically accomplished than your sweet-spoken Nehru. 

First of all, stop the spittle flying raging against the hindi belt - which btw I am not from.  See what happens when you get emotional?  Both Nehru and SC Bose had their flaws, as human beings tend to do.  And Nehru got a lot of things wrong, but thank God he wasn't a fascist wannabe like Chaddi Bose.  Else India would be a very different country right now.  and worse for it.   Someone like Sardar Patel should have led India - would be much better than "your" bose, and "their" Nehru.     

 

Banjo Mulo, just calm down.  Don't take the "effete bong" bait so easily.  You're only making it worse.

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, sandeep said:

First of all, stop the spittle flying raging against the hindi belt - which btw I am not from.  See what happens when you get emotional?  Both Nehru and SC Bose had their flaws, as human beings tend to do.  And Nehru got a lot of things wrong, but thank God he wasn't a fascist wannabe like Chaddi Bose.  Else India would be a very different country right now.  and worse for it.   Someone like Sardar Patel should have led India - would be much better than "your" bose, and "their" Nehru.     

 

Banjo Mulo, just calm down.  Don't take the "effete bong" bait so easily.  You're only making it worse.

1. We don't know if India would've been better or worse off with fascism in its initial stages. It most likely would've resulted in an India more steeped in the blood of its citizens, better secured borders and border wars, with stronger national institutions. Those are the hallmarks of a fascist government.

 

2. FYI, i think Gandhi's way was the best way. But it doesnt change the fact that flawed or not, Bengalis did the heavy lifting in actually fighting the british. Which did go a long way to finally convince the British that India is unholdable. 

 

3. Sardar Patel didnt even have the balls to counter Nehru. Yes, he'd have been the best guy to rule India after independence, but for that, he needed to be a less of a poodle to the Nehru-Gandhi clan and actually contest against them.

 

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

1. We don't know if India would've been better or worse off with fascism in its initial stages. It most likely would've resulted in an India more steeped in the blood of its citizens, better secured borders and border wars, with stronger national institutions. Those are the hallmarks of a fascist government.

 

2. FYI, i think Gandhi's way was the best way. But it doesnt change the fact that flawed or not, Bengalis did the heavy lifting in actually fighting the british. Which did go a long way to finally convince the British that India is unholdable. 

 

3. Sardar Patel didnt even have the balls to counter Nehru. Yes, he'd have been the best guy to rule India after independence, but for that, he needed to be a less of a poodle to the Nehru-Gandhi clan and actually contest against them.

 

1.  I don't accept your claim of stronger borders.  In fact, one could argue that an India under fascist rule would suffer further partitions and secessions like East Pakistan seceding from the Pakjabis.  

 

2.  Your attempt at revisionist nonsense doesn't change the actual facts - The likes of Gandhi, Patel, Lajpat Rai, Tilak were not bengalis.  To somehow claim the heavy lifting was done by Bengalis is a bit far-fetched.

 

3.  Questioning the Iron man's balls is a copout, and a lame baseless one at that.  The leaders of those times recognized that they all needed to work together as a team to build the new nation.  Patel selflessly took on the mantle of doing the "heavy lifting" of administration without the glory and public fame of "leadership".   That takes balls, not running away to Singapore and declaring yourself President with the support of the Japanese who wanted an Indian "Manchukuo".  

 

Dude - let's move on from this useless topic.  Whatever happened to your series on Ancient Indian History that you said you were going to start?  I was looking forward to it, and it just kinda.. died.   I for one, would enjoy such a series, especially free from the recent RSS style excessive "pride in one's heritage" slants - which I know you don't suffer from.  

[Yoda-esque]

I love how there is an explanation to everything.Someone should send this guy to develop our NCERT history books.Would put the likes of Romila to shame:)

[Muloghonto]

14 minutes ago, sandeep said:

1.  I don't accept your claim of stronger borders.  In fact, one could argue that an India under fascist rule would suffer further partitions and secessions like East Pakistan seceding from the Pakjabis.  

I don't see why Pakistan is relevant, because it wasnt fascist. Look at fascist states in history: Mussolini's Italy, Haile Selasse's Ethiopia. Or other states with totalitarian tendencies like USSR, PRC, NoKo, etc- the fascists and totalitarians are quite good at keeping national integrity intact. At the cost of rivers of blood, yes but intact nonetheless. 

Quote

 

2.  Your attempt at revisionist nonsense doesn't change the actual facts - The likes of Gandhi, Patel, Lajpat Rai, Tilak were not bengalis.  To somehow claim the heavy lifting was done by Bengalis is a bit far-fetched.

Thats not heavy lifting, thats sitting in rooms sipping tea with the British. Heavy lifting as in the actual incidents of violence done against the Brits. And for that, like i said, just go check the roll calls of Kalapani. More bengalis did violence against the Brits than rest of India put together.

Your Tilaks and Lajpat Rais would've gotten nowhere, just like the Naorojis got nowhere, because someone needed to put the thought in the British heads that India, without cooperation from the Indians, is ungovernable and it isn't just yet another case of 1857 mutiny of soldiers, where Britain can continue to rule India on the backs of hiring more sepoys. The continuous acts of violence against the Brits, largely done by bengalis, was the catalyst for them to even consider Swarajya, which we upped the ante to full independence. Gandhi exploited the political capital that was given to him, caused by the unrest stirred up by the Bengalis. And by that, i mean mostly Bengali hindus. bengali muslims did nothing towards independence of India, except for root for Pakistan when it was inevitable. 

 

Quote

Questioning the Iron man's balls is a copout, and a lame baseless one at that.  The leaders of those times recognized that they all needed to work together as a team to build the new nation.  Patel selflessly took on the mantle of doing the "heavy lifting" of administration without the glory and public fame of "leadership".   That takes balls, not running away to Singapore and declaring yourself President with the support of the Japanese who wanted an Indian "Manchukuo".  

....or the 'Ironman' was too afraid to lose whatever power he already had. Leaders of those times, including Patel himself recognized the acute need for great leadership and when Nehru failed to provide that, was not bold enough to challenge for power inside the party. Instead, we got a dynasty. 

Much of Congressi subsequent failings, i attribute to the one man who had a chance to topple Nehru but never wanted to jeopardize his own power as the 'right hand man of Nehru'....ie, Vallabhai Patel. 

 

Quote

 

Dude - let's move on from this useless topic.  Whatever happened to your series on Ancient Indian History that you said you were going to start?  I was looking forward to it, and it just kinda.. died.   I for one, would enjoy such a series, especially free from the recent RSS style excessive "pride in one's heritage" slants - which I know you don't suffer from.  

thread got deleted, got told to focus strictly on political history only, not history of culture, religion, the people (i.e., the actually long-lasting and fundamental parts of history) because its too controversial for our 'Parosis' and since the Site owner is not active enough to defend lawsuits against the site, to tone it down. 

Which means no critical look at AMT vs OOI, no Hindu vs Buddhist vs Jain talk of the Kannauj triangle era, no analyzing the genocides committed in the names of Islam, etc.

So kind of lost interest. As you well know, i don't operate well under serious gag orders...

 

Edited April 5, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, Yoda-esque said:

I love how there is an explanation to everything.Someone should send this guy to develop our NCERT history books.Would put the likes of Romila to shame:)

So there isn't an explanation for everything ? You believe some things are best left as 'Raam jane' and a shrug ?!

[rahulrulezz]

Wow your posts made me realize the achievements and a great history of Bengal. Hearing your thoughts, it's kinda sad to see Mamta ruling over the state

 

if you don't mind telling me, how come Buddhism and Jainism almost disappeared from India. Also, there was no such thing as Hinduism back in the day. It was Sanatam Dharma. What was the ratio like between Buddhism, Jainism and Sanatan Dharam. I always thought Jainism is a subsect of Hinduism. Also, Sanatan Dharam never believes in conversion. It believes in only Karmas. It believes that every person including non Hindus do right karmas, they go to heaven. So are you suggesting that there was mass conversion from Buddhism and Jainism to Hinduism. But how? We never had religious leaders. 

Please answer. Thanks. 

[rahulrulezz]

5 hours ago, Temujin Khaghan said:

you did not ask me this question, but I felt interested to make a post :)

 

1) I think everywhere Brahmin cruelty was at its highest, there muslims were able to convert the Dalits and lower castes...

so kerala, madurai, bengal etc... belong to this category

whereas brahmins were moderate, people did not convert so fast like in coastal Andhra, Karnataka and other regions had lesser conversions in medieval india. even in Rajasthan, Gujarat it was kshatriya hegemony more than brahmin domination, so there weren't a lot of conversions...

I hear Brahmin cruelty was also at its peaks in the Maharastra region and a lot of Dalits converted into Buddhist religion...

 

2) sometimes a group of invaders would make a place their own

afghans in rohilkand (UP region) and modern day Bihar (defeated armies of Lodi dynasty)

Hyderabad - shia muslims from Persia ... the folk of nizam-ul-mulk

of course west Punjab, Sindh etc... which are the closer to the Ghurid and the Caliphate... 

So as per you, Brahim cruelty was it worse in Bengal. 

 

Also, Bengal was never a centre or capital of most Mughals and I guess most conversions happened during their time.  So your answer comfused me. 

[rahulrulezz]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Several factors played its role:

 

1. When muslims came, Bengal was a 'newly conquered province' by the Hindu Sen dynasty from the Buddhist Pal dynasty and most bengalis were Buddhists with Hindu overlords- kind of how Awadh was mostly Hindu with Muslim overlords. So taking advantage of religious discord was a big thing.

2. Tribal population conversion, like the NE states.

3. Re-settlement of new lands : The settlement of eastern Bengal (that is, regions like Noakhali, Chittagong, Sylhet etc. was given priority basis by the Nawabs to the muslims. Prior to 1600s, the geography of Bengal wasnt as it is today : The Teesta & Mahananda flowed into the Karatoya, which was wider than Ganga itself and was the traditional boundary of Bengal with Assam. Brahmaputra flowed into the 'Buri Brahmaputra' channel by Brahmanbaria, not its current 'Jumna' channel. This was a huge piece of land given favourable settlement priority to muslim farmers. This new economic incentive fuelled a lot of conversions.

 

Sorry forgot to quote. Thanks for taking your time and answering. Very informative. Can you please reply to my earlier post too. Thanks. 

[Muloghonto]

10 minutes ago, rahulrulezz said:

Wow your posts made me realize the achievements and a great history of Bengal. Hearing your thoughts, it's kinda sad to see Mamta ruling over the state

 

if you don't mind telling me, how come Buddhism and Jainism almost disappeared from India. Also, there was no such thing as Hinduism back in the day. It was Sanatam Dharma. What was the ratio like between Buddhism, Jainism and Sanatan Dharam. I always thought Jainism is a subsect of Hinduism. Also, Sanatan Dharam never believes in conversion. It believes in only Karmas. It believes that every person including non Hindus do right karmas, they go to heaven. So are you suggesting that there was mass conversion from Buddhism and Jainism to Hinduism. But how? We never had religious leaders. 

Please answer. Thanks. 

1. Very complicated topic. Cannot be answered in one post. Short answer is, Indian public still too attached to magic and rituals, which gave an 'in' to the Vedanta movement,as hinduism incorporated magic rituals but Buddhists & Jains opposed it, Buddhist-run universities closing its doors to laymen admission, loss of royal patronage in the South, mass amounts of killings at the hands of the muslim invaders, mass amounts of conversions into hinduism sparked by Vedanta. Mohammed Bin Bhaktiyar Khilji burnt Nalanda, Vikramshila,Paharpur, Jagaddala, Odantipuri - all in a span of 5 years. Tens of thousands of scholars killed, many times more students killed. Those were mostly Buddhist-lead university. Such massive destruction in such a short time, cut off the intellectual head of Buddhism in India. 

 

2. The conversion done by hindus was on the basis of 'Nastik and Astika'. Ie, not in terms of becoming Hindu, but in terms of believing in authority of vedas or not. Adi Shankara was a big part of the conversion drive, as well as incorporating Buddhist traditions into Hinduism composite narrative. This is how you got the 'choti/teekee style Brahmins', which is a distinct Buddhist monk style dressing from the 'long hairs and beards of the Sadhus and Rishis of Vedism', along with many other amalgamations. 

 

Edited April 5, 2017 by Muloghonto

[surajmal]

bitchtits...

[BeautifulGame]

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Very complicated topic. Cannot be answered in one post. Short answer is, Indian public still too attached to magic and rituals, which gave an 'in' to the Vedanta movement,as hinduism incorporated magic rituals but Buddhists & Jains opposed it, Buddhist-run universities closing its doors to laymen admission, loss of royal patronage in the South, mass amounts of killings at the hands of the muslim invaders, mass amounts of conversions into hinduism sparked by Vedanta. Mohammed Bin Bhaktiyar Khilji burnt Nalanda, Vikramshila,Paharpur, Jagaddala, Odantipuri - all in a span of 5 years. Tens of thousands of scholars killed, many times more students killed. Those were mostly Buddhist-lead university. Such massive destruction in such a short time, cut off the intellectual head of Buddhism in India. 

 

2. The conversion done by hindus was on the basis of 'Nastik and Astika'. Ie, not in terms of becoming Hindu, but in terms of believing in authority of vedas or not. Adi Shankara was a big part of the conversion drive, as well as incorporating Buddhist traditions into Hinduism composite narrative. This is how you got the 'choti/teekee style Brahmins', which is a distinct Buddhist monk style dressing from the 'long hairs and beards of the Sadhus and Rishis of Vedism', along with many other amalgamations. 

 

To put it simply Hinduism is much easier to follow than Buddhism and Jainism.They are too rigid imo.

 

One of the reasons why in South once the patronage from the Kings stopped it was easier to convert people back to Hinduism.

[BeautifulGame]

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

1. We don't know if India would've been better or worse off with fascism in its initial stages. It most likely would've resulted in an India more steeped in the blood of its citizens, better secured borders and border wars, with stronger national institutions. Those are the hallmarks of a fascist government.

 

 

No we still would be under British Raj most likely.Considering Hitler's regular assertion that he wanted to make peace with Britain once war was over.

 

That is if Hitler just burn us to death because of our inferior race to him.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

17 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

To put it simply Hinduism is much easier to follow than Buddhism and Jainism.They are too rigid imo.

 

One of the reasons why in South once the patronage from the Kings stopped it was easier to convert people back to Hinduism.

I don't think Buddhism is rigid - its a 'choose your own adventure towards enlightenment' ideology.Its actually more flexible than hinduism is, in the sense that there is less of a guideline towards conduct. But Buddhism and Jainism is definitely more obtuse and complicated sounding than a simple idea of 'there are Gods/God. Good deeds = Gods are pleased, bad deeds = Gods get angry'. 

Its easier to relate it to uneducated people, which in Indian context, is basically most of Indian society for almost all of recorded history.

 

[Muloghonto]

12 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

No we still would be under British Raj most likely.Considering Hitler's regular assertion that he wanted to make peace with Britain once war was over.

 

That is if Hitler just burn us to death because of our inferior race to him.

 

 

??

I meant after independence, if India chose a hardcore totalitarian model - commie or fascist- it would've cost probably hundreds of thousands of lives (as in government killing off hundreds of thousands of dissenters ala Chile or USSR, etc) but our borders would be better defended, our government institutions (like taxes, justice system, etc) would be stronger. That is usually the MO of totalitarian regimes in low education society (which India was in 1947) - they deliver better state level results at the cost of far more innocent blood.

Not saying that is what we should've had, but assuming we had it only for 10 years like Netaji wanted, we cant really say for sure if it'd have made India better or worse 60 years later. It would've made the people more miserable and the national institutions stronger in those 10 years, thats for sure.

[rahulrulezz]

16 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Very complicated topic. Cannot be answered in one post. Short answer is, Indian public still too attached to magic and rituals, which gave an 'in' to the Vedanta movement,as hinduism incorporated magic rituals but Buddhists & Jains opposed it, Buddhist-run universities closing its doors to laymen admission, loss of royal patronage in the South, mass amounts of killings at the hands of the muslim invaders, mass amounts of conversions into hinduism sparked by Vedanta. Mohammed Bin Bhaktiyar Khilji burnt Nalanda, Vikramshila,Paharpur, Jagaddala, Odantipuri - all in a span of 5 years. Tens of thousands of scholars killed, many times more students killed. Those were mostly Buddhist-lead university. Such massive destruction in such a short time, cut off the intellectual head of Buddhism in India. 

 

2. The conversion done by hindus was on the basis of 'Nastik and Astika'. Ie, not in terms of becoming Hindu, but in terms of believing in authority of vedas or not. Adi Shankara was a big part of the conversion drive, as well as incorporating Buddhist traditions into Hinduism composite narrative. This is how you got the 'choti/teekee style Brahmins', which is a distinct Buddhist monk style dressing from the 'long hairs and beards of the Sadhus and Rishis of Vedism', along with many other amalgamations. 

 

Thank you so much again for taking time and replying back to my question. Learnt a lot.  Few more questions based on your post

 

1) when did this MASS conversion from Buddhism happened. Your posts are suggesting that it just happened in last 800years. So you are suggesting me that we North Indians were most likely Buddhist in 1200s and converted to Hinduism because god Vedanata movement. But why not choose Islam, why Hinduism. There was no incentive to choose Hinduism. There was no killings or persecutions on Buddhists by Sanatan Dharmas folks. But Islamic rulers

did kill non Muslims. With no clear leader or no autogotoheaven points for converting someone to Hinduism, who pushed Buddhists and Jains, and why did they convert to Hinduism

2) So just to be clear, lot of Bengalis

were given land incentives in the East Bengal area, and hence why a vast majority of Bengalis converted to Islam. 

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, rahulrulezz said:

Thank you so much again for taking time and replying back to my question. Learnt a lot.  Few more questions based on your post

 

1) when did this MASS conversion from Buddhism happened. Your posts are suggesting that it just happened in last 800years. So you are suggesting me that we North Indians were most likely Buddhist in 1200s and converted to Hinduism because god Vedanata movement. But why not choose Islam, why Hinduism. There was no incentive to choose Hinduism. There was no killings or persecutions on Buddhists by Sanatan Dharmas folks. But Islamic rulers

did kill non Muslims. With no clear leader or no autogotoheaven points for converting someone to Hinduism, who pushed Buddhists and Jains, and why did they convert to Hinduism

2) So just to be clear, lot of Bengalis

were given land incentives in the East Bengal area, and hence why a vast majority of Bengalis converted to Islam. 

1. Not all of North India were 'mostly Buddhist', the only region of North India described as 'mostly buddhist' is the Bengal-Bihar region, where Pal Empire was based. Rest of Ganges had a healthy mix of hindus, buddhists & Jains, same with the Indus Valley, though there is no evidence that Buddhism was present in significant quantities in Rajputana. 

The conversion from Buddhism to Hinduism started happening after 700s AD, when Bhakti movement was gaining ground in places like upper Ganges valley, South India etc. In places like Indus valley or Bengal the conversion happened mostly from Buddhism to Islam. 

 

2. Land incentive was a major incentive to convert but not the only reason as i pointed out. Conversion of tribals into muslim population was also a major reason. 

[surajmal]

Bengal is so awesome. Yet no one knows about it. Weren't Bong commies in charge of writing Indian history for the last 70 years? 

WTF is going on here

^^^^^

State of a Bong's mind after series of bouts with cognitive dissonance. 

Edited April 6, 2017 by surajmal

[Yoda-esque]

Whatever Bengal thinks today....

 

 

 

the Rest of India doesn't think much of it.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, surajmal said:

Bengal is so awesome. Yet no one knows about it. Weren't Bong commies in charge of writing Indian history for the last 70 years? 

WTF is going on here

 

 

Our chaddi bhakts in their over-eagerness to show chaddi-giri forget that commies and congress in Bengal were hated enemies. 

Edited April 6, 2017 by Muloghonto