gator Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Hinduism managed to survive NOT because of armed resistance but because of the inherent nature of the faith. dude... its very simple.... hinduism survived cos hindus survived... cos we know, there are no conversion..... hindus survived cos of armed struggled, as proven by that paper.... hence.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts *sigh* Look- the article talks about a whole host of resistance in Marwar, mewar, sindh, Orissa, etc etc. in sporadic manner and in patches- no region from north india listed there created consistent trouble for the muslim invaders over the 800 year period. Sure, a region flared for a while, was put down and that was it for that region- under muslim dominion for the next several centuries. Anyways, my point was about the gangetic plain - ie, the doab region to bangladesh- most of it was under unquestioned muslim rule for a long while - if you wanna nitpick and say those regions flared for a while and it was not 700 years of unbroken domination - fine ! i dont want to nitpick numbers - maybe it was 400 years or maybe it was 500 years. Whatever. My point is that the gangetic plain was unquestionably under the dominion of the muslim rulership and still retained majority hindu population - that had nothing to do with armed resistance!! PS: I don't understand your point about credibility exactly. Just how exactly does that article have any more credibility than your opinion or mine ? Where is the bibliography ? where is the author(s) drawing their conclusion from ? Its just text in HTTP format in some website. If thats what you consider to be 'well researched and credible', then i can just compress my argument in an essay format and put it up in the net too! PPS: I just went to the homepage of that site and i saw a lot of positive comments about Golwarkar and RSS - well that in itself proves that the article and website are not up to scratch in scholarship standard. And i doubt you will find many historians or anthropologists from this side of the world or India who give any credibility to Golwarkar or RSS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts are you saying those events listed in that article are all made up and didnt occur ? What i am saying is, when you talked about 'nicely researched and credible article', i expected references at the very least. I, nor you, have no way of knowing the authenticity of that article or verifying the chronology since it is just an essay. Do you need this endorsed by the ISI and SIMI for you to accept it ? LOL I need it to be endorsed by a non-partisan group. A hindu website that associates itself with fundamentalist hindus,which the RSS are by the very definition of their charter, is hardly a balanced or neutral ground for Islamic debate or criticism. ( And as 'fundamentalist', i don't mean it in a negative 'blow things up doods' way- fundamentalist means one who adheres to the fundamentals of a particular philosophy and is not open to changing their opinion ) Its like taking the word of a Jewish website on Jesus! Anyways, back to the topic : I was using the gangetic plain area as an example to illustrate that Hinduism didn't survive by militant force or insurgency but simply because its overall superior harmony with the natural order of things ensured its survival. This is the same reason why Jainism also survived in the subcontinent under Muslim rule. Jains didn't resort to militant action and neither were they irradicated. Your 'militant hindus opposed islam thus ensuring hinduism's survival' angle sure can't explain the Jains of India either. As i said, that article does nothing to disprove my point about the gangetic plain - which is a substantial chunk of land. I am using it as an example to demonstrate why Hinduism didn't die out despite Islamic rulership for hundreds of years and little or no insurgency from within. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Oh this is just great. Do you even read the stuff before you post your link ? It says : Heroic Hindu Resistance to Muslim Invaders (636 AD to 1206 AD) SITA RAM GOEL Voice of India, New Delhi *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts I can also simply say there WAS armed resistance to counter your opinion. WHERE in the Gangetic plains (which is my f*cking example!!!!!!!) was there armed resistance over a consistent period ? How often did Bengal or Bihar or UP or Haryana flare up ? Obviously a region will simmer for a while (read: decades) since the conquest- but by armed insurgency over the muslim rule, you must produce evidence spread over a reasonable chunk of that 800 year period! Besides, if what i am saying is 'opinion', so too is what this SR Goel guy is saying. You claim to be an IT professional - well i don't know if they made you write a thesis at college but there is *NOTHING* in that website that meets even the simplest of authenticity checks. Its just a whole bunch of well written articles with no backdrop or source or explained methodology for comming up with the dates or the events ! SR Goel could be writing a historical novel or a propaganda piece like the Nazi authors did for all you know. Look- there is a lot of propaganda out there from all sides and history is especially notorious for it. Look at the Nazi propaganda from late 1800s onwards. If a historical text does not provide any backdrop to how it came across the information or what is the source of its inference, it has about as much credibility as a Sidney Sheldon novel. Simply because a guy is saying what you want to believe does not make his stuff credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Concentrate on the facts CC ... CC1981 Says ... Bla bla bla ... *** BIGGEST SIGH ***** I guess at this late hour, the nuances are taxing. I'll spell it out for you : THe author's span is 636-1206 AD. Since we know that the second battle of Tarain ( seminal event in Indian history!) took place in 1192, the span of the author is inadmissible to this debate. Incase you forget, Muslims ruled India till the British defeated S. ud-Daulah in late 1700s ! WTF happened to the next 500 years in that author's mind ?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Lets try this again CC ... YOU CLAIM WHATEVER YOU ARE CLAIMING YOU PROOVE IT ! YOUR WORD = NOT WORTH ANYTHING Clear ? Fine by me then - as long as you extend the same courtesy towards this Goel guy as well !! The only difference is, he wrote his stuff in a novel instead of over a messageboard. Like i said, compressing my thoughts into an essay or even a book and putting it up online is not challenging at all. That guy provides ZERO proofs, bibliography or source for his inference. Where did he get this information ? Divine intervention ? You have ZERO logical reason to differentiate between what anyone here is saying and what this SR Goel guy is saying. All you got is the fact that Goel says something you want to believe over me saying something that you don't like. And that is the bottomline. When you said that this article is well researched and credible, I assumed that you knew what academic credibility and research standards are. My apologies for that mistake! PS: I marvel at your 'logic'. In middle of a discussion about whether or not there was hindu rebellion(s) under muslim rule of India ( which streched to late 1700s CE!), you quote a book which covers events up to only 1206 CE. How very very brilliant of you ! I suppose tomorrow, you are gonna find book on 'colonial India' that limits the span to 1818 CE ( a date i just pulled outta my *ss) and say ' see ? what Gandhi ? who Gandhi ?' :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Yeah I was not aware that any article by a Hindu is a lie by default especially since its on the RSS website .. how dare they tell the truth ... What you were not aware is that the words 'credible' and 'well researched' in academic circles mean the following : 1. An explanation and demonstration of the reasoning behind inferring data 2. Citation of sources throughout the article or at the end through bibliography. As i said,this book is just about as credible as what any poster here would be saying, not just you and me. sorry I dont subscribe to your If Hindu Then Lie Else Truth line of bigoted thinking Then you should attend a class on ethics or what constitutes as credible sources. I guess you missed out on the fundamental concept of credibility : Peer review. You *CANNOT* take any source in any scenario and call it credible simply because of the possibility of conflict of interest. You don't ask a Jewish university's opinion on Jesus. Or an atheist's views on God. Or a hindu nationalist's perspective on Islam Or a Jewish dude's opinion on Nazism Or an Arab dude's opinion on Zionism. ALL the above represents 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' ! Show me an article or credible piece from an accredited educational instutution - be it India or overseas.Not something from a hinduvta website concerning muslim past/present of india. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts And all this bakwaas based on "YOUR" opinion ... pfffft ... come back when you have an article to support your claims ... Ok then. I shall write an essay one day, put it on the web and you shall have your article, since that is the level of scholarship you subscribe to. I am sorry but i can say with certainty: This book/link does NOT meet any standard of academic scholarship and its level of scholarship is similar to that of a novel. If you do not believe me, take this link to your nearest university professor and ask them if this book has any credible scholarship from the link you've presented. Anyways - lets get back to the topic : Explain the Jain situation. Or does that blow too much of a hole in your ' armed resistance is the cause of hindu faith's survival in India' theory ?!? PS: Conflict of interest, definition of academic scholarship or peer review is not 'my bakwaas'. I wish it were 'my bakwaas' for then i'd be on my way to winning a Pullitzer or two and being very very rich for comming up with the fundamental benchmarks for academic scholarship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhruvdeepak Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts some fantastic debating here by CC1981. i tend to agree with the logic he has presented. will post in more detail later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts What part of Dr. Misra a "Historian" do you not understand The part where Dr. Misra's affiliations, credentials and peer review is a big big unknown. Now, can you answer my question about the Jain scenario ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts The part where Dr. Misra's affiliations' date=' credentials and peer review is a big big zero.[/quote'] And your credentials are exactly what ... ? I didn't claim impeccable credentials ! No one here did- we are debating our viewpoints and what we've learnt through time. You wanted to present a guy who apparently has some very 'rigorously researched and credible' arguments but who's credibilities are not established. If you are not aware, then know this : a person in any field is subject to peer review : ie, pass the test of their own peers in terms of quality and consistency in work ( NOT necessarily whether the peer agrees with the outcome/conclusions or not) in order to be considered a credible source. This is why i asked for an article from someone-anyone- from an accredited educational institution : regulated high schools or universities and colleges- from anywhere- India or overseas- to corroborrate this viewpoint. For inorder to remain a professional teacher, one *must* pass the peer review for his/her work to be considered accredited. Failure to comply results in termination of services and getting barred from educational institutions. This system exists to preserve the integrity of a field- even in fields (Such as history or anthropology) where integrity and empirical analysis is a scarce commodity. If one is a teacher at an university/college/high school then at the very least, i can accept that its not pure fanciful thinking or propaganda. Depends whether you want to continue on your Anal route of debating as usual ... or you want to be mature and factual .. I know its quite hard for you but give it a try Fine fine. If your ego is jilted, i apologise. Paye laagu, namaste, pranaam and all that. Just answer my point about Jains. I'll make this very simple for you: You claim that Hinduism managed to survive in India only through active militancy till the British showed up. I claim that Hinduism managed to survive because its simply put, better worked and closer to the 'truth' than its rival here and not because of armed resistance. I point to two examples to illustrate my point : a) The ganges valley region(ie, Doab region to Bangladesh), which has mostly been under muslim rule since the battle of Tarain till the arrival of the British power in subcontinent ( a span of approximately 600 years) remained mostly hindu, as evidenced by only a small chunk being partitioned (Bangladesh/East Pak.). Since the partition was mostly based on religious majority, the fact that only a small portion of the Ganges basin went to the Muslim League is proof of this. This region retained its hindu core despite being under domination from Muslim rulers for most of that 600 year period. b) The Jains of India- even though small in numbers relatively- also managed to survive the Muslim period. It is a known fact- established by the fundamentals of Jainism- that Jains are extremely peaceful and basically speaking ' excellent people'. The idea of Jain insurgency is just about as laughable as the idea of a Buddhist crusade. Ie, for any claim of Jains getting violent and engaging in insurgency to have any shred of credibility, proof *must* be produced of such act in detail. Therefore, for the conciseness of this debate, until proven otherwise, I shall say that Jains - whatever they did/did not do - they definately did not pick up swords/bowls/arrows/guns and go kill Muslim invading folks to keep their faith alive. If your claim, that 'Hinduism managed to survive because of active insurgency or otherwise it'd have faded' is true, then Jainism should've faded. It should've been utterly wiped out, given how miniscule their numbers are compared to hindus and Jains are effectively concentrated in few areas representing the large chunk of Jain population. Yet, Jainism survived and thus, I conclude that your claim is erroneous. What says thou ? PS: I am gone now for a few days but i shall revisit this debate since it has been mostly conducted in acceptable spirit from all parties involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts and Buddhism was equally prevalent (if not more) than Jainism when Islam arrived Buddhism has been estimated to've been between 25-45% of North and Central India's population from 300 BCE(approx.) to 800 CE(approx.) varying with times. Jainism has been estimated to've been around 10-15% of the population of north/central India from prehistoric times (since it is a known fact that Jainism existed before Mahavira, as attested by hindu texts themselves) to 800-900 CE or so. That itself prooves my point on a direct link of survival with armed resistance ... Err..no. As i explained, Buddhism's demise was not just because of military confrontation with Islam but also due to Hindu rivavalist movement (bhakti) coinciding with the invasions at the same time. Secondly, demise of buddhism due to military and competing actions does not necessarily equate to survival therefore must be due to armed resistance[. You forget that Hinduism has one very important concept called Ahimsa. This is one of *the* fundamental facets of Dharmic faiths and continuous armed resistance from a ahimsa-oriented faith is very unlikely. This is *the* main reason why Hindus have never launched a crusade or jihad to claim back land from Muslim invaders. And this is the point that is lost on you or your ilk and that is whats most concerning. You don't value one of the fundamental tenets of hinduism but instead act more like a Muslim fanatic wanting to go into other people's land and 'pre-empt' the 'adharm' ( hmmm. sounds familiar to Al Qaeda, yet they are your own words). Throughout history they have largely relied on patronage from Hindu rulers to survive. Err..no. Hindu Kings patronized Buddhism, Buddhist kings patronised Hinduism,etc etc. You forget that India has also had several Buddhist empires influencing it or controlling large portions of it. The Mauryan empire was Buddhist from Ashoka, the Guptas started as Buddhists, The Greco-Bactrian empires ( Mihira and Milinda two most prominent ones) were Buddhist and so were the Kushans after a few generations. You still havn't explained how Jains survived without resorting to violence in areas that came under Muslim domination for centuries ( Gujrat region for example and the fact that Ganges basin remained under firm Muslim control and yet retained over 50% hindu population. What you are missing is that Hindu faith and religion can be easily kept underground by large number of people, since it is easily worked out that way. Sadly, most of the hinduvta elements today (which includes RSS, etc) are motivated by two factors : a) Utter demonisation of muslims- every single ruler, every single person b) Overglorification of Hinduism and a superiority complex about India and Hinduism that is no different from nascent form of Aryan superiority theory from late 1800s/early 1900s. What they don't even know what Hinduism really is about or have failed to read more than the Gita (if even that) all the while having the presumptuousness to speak for Hinduism. Anyways, this conversation is getting boring and we are going round and round in circles again. Unless some other posters bring in some fresh ideas or angles, i think i am gonna quit now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts errmm minor correction ... that was in response to YOUR adhoc and YET TO BE SUBSTANTIATED CLAIM that Hinduism survived by NOT PICKING UP ARMS I am sorry but if you knew anything about Hinduism(which you dont beyond what's 'common knowledge') then you'd realize that for an Ahmisa-vadi faith to've picked up arms under religious reasons ( Many of Maratha wars were purely political in nature, not religiously motivated) is a highly unlikely scenario. I don't have to prove that a sanyasi had sex- you have to prove that he did for you don't prove the default position but the claim against it. Likewise, i don't have to prove that a religion known for its peacefulness (until lately when we've had too many of your type in your age group pop up- must be somethign in the water i guess) resorted to terrorism and insurgency to survive. You have to prove that and all you've produced are some fanciful novels that cannot substantiate or differentiate between political conquests and religious ones, since they come from fundamentalist hindu sources. You were the one that got bent outta shape when I ventured into providing articles that were merely a collection of events on the flimsy pretext that they were unacceptable because they come from RSS website ... If i started taking the RSS seriously, i might as well take HAMAS or Aryan Nation or KKK seriously. Sorry but i dont associate with fundamentalists of any sort. Heres how debates work CC when YOU CLAIM something ... then ITS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to come up with facts to corroborate them.. Fine. But hold yourself to the same standards and don't come up with unsubstantiated fundamentalist hindu trash. So now whats it going to be ANAL or NON-ANAL ... ? Me thinks you should restrict questions like that only for your wife/husband/lover. Anyways, as i said, in my previous post, this debate is getting tiresome. Arguing you and arguing a jihadi al-qaeda fanatic is no different. So i'll quit while i am at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts If RSS can be labelled fundamentalist , then so should Muslim League. IMO, it's like the black caucus in Congress US. Just imagine if whites have their own caucus. They will be labelled as racists. Can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts KR, there is nothing wrong in being a conservative Right wing entity as long as you follow the rules of your land and obey the constitution. But what I have a problem with is people like CC saying that whatever RSS says = Flase just because they are Right wing. its like saying truth is only spoken by Leftist ... gimme a break. I happen to agree with you. That's why , I gave the analogy of Black caucus. I find it offensive that people call RSS right wing fundamentalist and will not extend the same courtesy to Muslim League. IMO, in a democratic setup , if RSS can be called fundamentalist because they represent Hindu interest , then then so should Muslim league be called Fundamentalist because it represents the interests of Muslims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhondy Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts As I said before there is a reason why most mods think you are nothing but a troll. I am not among them. I think CC is a wonderful debator, very well read, and brings a lot to this forum. As does Boss. "Troll" is completely inappropriate usage here. Argumentative, well informed, dogmatic, yes....troll, certainly not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhondy Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Arguing for the sake of it and making ludicrous statements like "Indian soldiers in Kashmir die for a worthless cause" ... "Israel should be wiped" ... and when confronted get abusive and worse involve family members ... is a typical behaviour of a troll. My problem with the above, Boss, is that you are making assumptions that he doesn't really believe what he is writing. May not be true. Those may be his actual thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts I knew this debate too will go for ever and pretty soon noone will be able to tell what was being discussed; reason too much room for passing off opinions as facts and indulging in drivelous word-play. Same characters run away the moment topic precludes these opinion based debatics. Boss ji you are wasting your time. He is not going to accept anything if all else fails in the end he might give u email address of some of his learned friend :-) or brandish some yet to be finished degree (Jaise ham ghuinya chhilte hon). :wall: Waise achchha hai kam se kam thread khich to raha hai :lmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts I find it offensive that people call RSS right wing fundamentalist and will not extend the same courtesy to Muslim League. Err. When did i say that the ML is not fundamentalist either ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts