Secularism was never indigenous to India - a case for why India's 'secularists' are delusional

[Manny_Pacquiao]

39 minutes ago, rock777 said:

son then how usa  russia  china became super power  other super powers existed before them similar is the case with sikhism

ok so maybe the next superpower could be a unified subcontinent, or akhand bharat

 

what we do know, is that akbar-wala secularism will not achieve the goal of being a super power.

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

you seem somewhat knowledgeable on this.

what do you think about akbar's rule? did hindus and muslims hold equal status under his reign?

 

I don't think Akbar was able to bring EQUAL rights to Hindus vs the Muslims. It could be 80% or 90% but it difficult to believe that it was 100% (in my opinion). 

 

But the problem did not lie in Akbar. It lied in the "system" in which Akbar had to run the government.

 

Akbar needed the support of his Generals and other strong people in Delhi, and most of those influential people seems to be Muslims.

 

Thus, credit goes to Akbar that he tried to bring more and more rights to Hindus and elevate their status as compared his forefathers. In his own personal life, Akbar seems to be secular person who indeed thought for the betterment of his Hindu subjects too.  

 

This world is not perfect, human beings are not perfect. But I am still thankful to Akbar that his secular approach is indeed giving power to the secularist elements in  later coming generations from his time till today.

 

For Mullahs, Akbar was an evil person. It seems that religious people in Pakistan hate Akbar and they praise Aurangzeb. 

[NameGoesHere]

Unfortunately a very lightweight article.  "Never indigenous"?  I could just say "Vasudev Kutumbam", cite the reference and destroy his argument. 

 

But fake aggressive types - in academia and 'real life' abound these day. 

[Manny_Pacquiao]

8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I don't think Akbar was able to bring EQUAL rights to Hindus vs the Muslims. It could be 80% or 90% but it difficult to believe that it was 100% (in my opinion). 

 

But the problem did not lie in Akbar. It lied in the "system" in which Akbar had to run the government.

 

Akbar needed the support of his Generals and other strong people in Delhi, and most of those influential people seems to be Muslims.

 

Thus, credit goes to Akbar that he tried to bring more and more rights to Hindus and elevate their status as compared his forefathers. In his own personal life, Akbar seems to be secular person who indeed thought for the betterment of his Hindu subjects too.  

 

This world is not perfect, human beings are not perfect. But I am still thankful to Akbar that his secular approach is indeed giving power to the secularist elements in  later coming generations from his time till today.

 

For Mullahs, Akbar was an evil person. It seems that religious people in Pakistan hate Akbar and they praise Aurangzeb. 

 

LOL, there's no such thing as being 80% equal. i'm actually laughing out loud at this.

 

all you're doing is proving my original point. there was no secularism in india, and certainly never under mughal rule. you're showing that arguments in favor of muslim-led secularism amount to nothing more than justification of atrocities committed against un-equal non-believers.

 

i'll ask you the same thing i asked the other guy....i would appreciate an honest answer!

 

 

Quote

1 hour ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

 

now for the next point:

ram janmabhoomi trust allowed the construction of a mosque in ayodhya.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/up-govt-allots-5-acres-for-mosque-in-ayodhya-25km-from-temple-site-near-lucknow-highway/articleshow/73971357.cms

 

now that you have the alternatives in front of you...which is better? hindutva-inspired secularism, or the 'deen ul elahi'-inspired akbar-ian secularism?

 

 

Edited March 13, 2020 by Manny_Pacquiao

[Manny_Pacquiao]

8 minutes ago, NameGoesHere said:

Unfortunately a very lightweight article.  "Never indigenous"?  I could just say "Vasudev Kutumbam", cite the reference and destroy his argument. 

 

But fake aggressive types - in academia and 'real life' abound these day. 

he's referring to the principle of secularism as defined by non-hindus.

[NameGoesHere]

On 3/10/2020 at 9:59 PM, Manny_Pacquiao said:

but he got it right.

 

The version of history we are/were taught is not a correct representation, and was primarily meant to serve congress party legacy:

Mughals were good/the British were *ing horrible

 

A more objective version, and certainly from a hindu perspective:

Mughals were *ing horrible/the British were an improvement but still bad

 

There's very little comparison between the mughals and the british. You could easily argue that poor mughal governance created the conditions for the east india company to attempt territorial conquest.

 

@Muloghonto you'd probably like this sort of discussion.

Hey since we're talking about versions of history we were never taught, how about a (like your debatable) addition to your version: "The Marathas were murderers "

 

Quote

During that time, the Maratha invaders, called "Bargis" in Bengali, perpetrated atrocities against the local population,^[13] against Bengali Muslims^[14] as well as Bengali Hindus.^[10] As described in both Indian and European sources, the Marathas reportedly plundered and burned villages, murdered pregnant women and infants, and raped women (including gang rape),^[15] and are estimated to have killed about 400,000 people.^[6][11] The Maratha atrocities during their invasion of Bengal is considered to be among the deadliest massacres in Indian history.^[1

 

Quote

 

According to the 18th-century Bengali text Maharashtra Purana written by Gangaram:^[13]

They shouted over and over again, 'Give us money', and when they got no money they filled peoples' nostrils with water, and some they seized and drowned in tanks, and many died of suffocation. In this way they did all manner of foul and evil deeds. When they demanded money and it was not given to them, they would put the man to death. Those who had money gave it, those who had none were killed.

 

 

 

I have not confirmed this myself but apparently in some areas of Bengal even today some local nursery rhymes of Hindu mothers sung to infants  condemn the Maratha marauders?

Edited March 13, 2020 by NameGoesHere

[NameGoesHere]

Just now, Manny_Pacquiao said:

he's referring to the principle of secularism as defined by non-hindus.

Maybe I have him wrong then, let me read this again.  But whatever he says does not seem to define your thread title.  Just a comment,.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

11 minutes ago, NameGoesHere said:

Hey since we're talking about versions of history we were never taught, how about a (like your debatable) addition to your version: "The Marathas were murderers "

I have not confirmed this myself but apparently in some areas of Bengal even today some local nursery rhymes of Hindu mothers sung to infants  condemn the Maratha marauders?

 

I have no issues with discussing the mauryas, marathas or anybody else. in fact, the original post even mentions the mauryas. no disagreement from me. hindu empires were not truly secular.

 

let's take this discussion where it needs to go:

 

do you think a hindu majoritarian state - modelled on ayodhya - is preferable to a secular nation - modelled on article-370 kashmir, or akbar's deen e-elahi, gandhi's ideals, or whatever else?

[NameGoesHere]

1 minute ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

 

I have no issues with discussing the mauryas, marathas or anybody else. in fact, the original post even mentions the mauryas. no disagreement from me. hindu empires were not truly secular.

 

let's take this discussion where it needs to go:

 

do you think a hindu majoritarian state - modelled on ayodhya - is preferable to a secular nation - modelled on article-370 kashmir, or akbar's deen e-elahi, gandhi's ideals, or whatever else?

With respect- you can't put words in my mouth.  Or ask me questions basis nothing.  For example I could ask:

Quote

Do you think Adolf Hitler pre 1936 was preferable to Joseph Stalin circa 1932-33 when he'd just begin to consolidate? Or both  discarded for Abraham Lincoln from 1862 to 1863?

Context is important. 

 

But some human values are consistent. 

[Manny_Pacquiao]

Just now, NameGoesHere said:

With respect- you can't put words in my mouth.  Or ask me questions basis nothing.  For example I could ask:

Context is important. 

 

But some human values are consistent. 

I'm trying to cut through the bullshit. i dont wanna waste my time in aimless discussions.

 

certain states serve as models for governance. that's where this debate currently is. we are discussing ideas....the best case scenario for the future.

 

which model of governance is best for india, and what role should religion play within, or outside it?

[coffee_rules]

31 minutes ago, NameGoesHere said:

Hey since we're talking about versions of history we were never taught, how about a (like your debatable) addition to your version: "The Marathas were murderers "

 

 

 

 

I have not confirmed this myself but apparently in some areas of Bengal even today some local nursery rhymes of Hindu mothers sung to infants  condemn the Maratha marauders?

The Barqis were a part-mercenary armies of Marathas were dacoits and looters. They were feudals who were used to collect tax and land revenue from peasants. They were used in small surprise attacks against the enemy when the Marathas provided them with horses and spears. It was a period of expansion when Marathas were winning land across India from Attock to Cuttack. There are Bengali folklore poets who have exaggerated accounts of the torture, rape and deaths, it could be about 10s of thousands dead. 400000 seems a bit too much for a fact.  

 

The Marathas empire expansion was a Hindu nationalistic revival in the 17th century (Shivaji etc) and also fighting with Moghuls and English in the mid-18th century. Agreed, it is all not noble, but you can't equate such excesses to the looting and plundering of the other two Invading empires which is mainly related to Icococlasm and Colonial expansion. The purpose of the attacks were never the same, looting peasants and people to destroying temples and converting millions of people.

[rock777]

10 hours ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

ok so maybe the next superpower could be a unified subcontinent, or akhand bharat

 

what we do know, is that akbar-wala secularism will not achieve the goal of being a super power.

And neither india under modi and bjp will become super power

[Muloghonto]

On 3/10/2020 at 9:29 AM, Manny_Pacquiao said:

but he got it right.

 

The version of history we are/were taught is not a correct representation, and was primarily meant to serve congress party legacy:

Mughals were good/the British were *ing horrible

 

A more objective version, and certainly from a hindu perspective:

Mughals were *ing horrible/the British were an improvement but still bad

 

There's very little comparison between the mughals and the british. You could easily argue that poor mughal governance created the conditions for the east india company to attempt territorial conquest.

 

@Muloghonto you'd probably like this sort of discussion.

This is true. I remember seeing that on top of never ending temple destructions and wars, Mughals were by far the most economically oppressive aristocracy of the feudal world. 
 

the British improvement wasn’t a secret long ago. Simply speaking, Under Britain Indians got religious freedom of ‘everyone is left alone and can’t mess with one another much’, better taxation than under Mughals and much, much lower warfare. This bolded part was key to their success: areas they conquered- they very rarely, if ever lost, especially all initial conquests. Before this, the various Nawabs of Bengal, Awadh, Mughals, Marathas, Hyderabad, Tipu choot, etc were waging war in virtually every province of India. 

What the Indians lost, as a consequence, was much more decisive, all encompassing racism and devaluation of all Indian culture under the British. 

[Muloghonto]

40 minutes ago, rock777 said:

And neither india under modi and bjp will become super power

Nobody said India would become super power under modi. Not even China got pauper to superpower in 25 years. 25 years into their economic reforms, they were around the same ballpark as India is now. And we are a spastic democracy, not military authoritarian regime that in this case can peruse a goal with bloodyminded determination. But one day we will get there unless global warming really does get us all

[Real McCoy]

14 hours ago, rock777 said:

son calm down take it easy 

uncle get a life

[Real McCoy]

14 hours ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

the world would be a boring place if we all thought the same way.

 

these days, there's too much name-calling and not enough debate.

 

on twitter, i get called a 'troll', a 'sanghi', a 'hindu terrorist' just for disagreeing with certain points. this is not the way it should be.

Fair enough. I just don't like these "debates" My views are absolute. No debates

[rock777]

1 hour ago, Real McCoy said:

uncle get a life

Love you my son

[rock777]

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Nobody said India would become super power under modi. Not even China got pauper to superpower in 25 years. 25 years into their economic reforms, they were around the same ballpark as India is now. And we are a spastic democracy, not military authoritarian regime that in this case can peruse a goal with bloodyminded determination. But one day we will get there unless global warming really does get us all

Yeah inda does not have potential to become world power with poverty illicit  and modi it is impossible  i totally forgot

[Manny_Pacquiao]

36 minutes ago, rock777 said:

Yeah inda does not have potential to become world power with poverty illicit  and modi it is impossible  i totally forgot

why don't you want to live in a hindu majority nation?

[rock777]

12 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

why don't you want to live in a hindu majority nation?

because  beef rice is my favorite food and in hindu majority nation they might kill me for eating beef