Nationalist myths?

[gorah_pindu]

Hindus are being converted. Other religions have a higher birth rate. Hinduism lost millions of followers in medieval times. But Hinduism is larger now than it has ever been isnt it? At this rate it would take hundreds of years for a religion to significantly impact Hinduism through population growth difference. And India's population growth is slowing - to the extent it will have probably stopped well before then. What does a community of a billion (or 1.5 billion if we include other Dharmic religions) have to fear, when it is only getting bigger all the time, and has never had so many followers? Not only that, but probably a higher proportion of Hindus now understand the philosophy they follow, than at any other time in history, due to literacy and education. India lost Pakistan and Bangladesh due to partition. Look at the Chinese, they have grown bigger instead. But India is larger in land area now than most of its empires ever were isnt it? Pakistan has been ruled by Greeks, Persians and Arabs in the past, so hasnt always been 'Indian', having been host to the Greek and Persian religions, as well as their languages. India still contains one sixth of the world's population, which is no small figure. The Chinese have largely added inhospitable and uninhabited terrain to their state, and while the nationalist myths that led to the conquest of Tibet are false, their empire did once rule Tibet and Turkestan, whereas in comparison no north Indian empire ruled Tamil Nadu or Manipur, and no south Indian empire ruled further north than Orissa. Best to be satisfied with what you have. India's culture is being wiped out by western trends. Everyone will be wearing jeans and eating McDonalds soon. America, Europe and Japan are all culturally successful because they are open. Thus people can find something they enjoy in any of these cultures, even if there is also stuff they disagree with - a foriegn kid might hate the American government, but listen to an American band that is anti-establishment - in the end, he is still being influenced by American culture. India is not open - anti-establishment trends at best get no publicity, and at worst, are censored. Until India is open, externally and internally, it will never be as powerful. If you want western and Indian kids to buy dhotis instead of jeans in order to look like their favorite kshatriya cartoon hero, you have gotta be culturally open and innovative. Hinduism is a 5000 year old religion that is the native belief system of the Indian people. Muslims believe that the Kaaba is the place where Abraham sacrificed his son to god, and was taken over by pagans before being restored to Islam by Mohammed. This is clearly a load of bullshit - the Kaaba was probably a pagan Arab shrine to a local god, that got converted into an Abrahamic one by Mohammed, in order to lend legitimacy to his movement. As much as I love Hinduism, I am also forced to point out that there has never been a single Hindu religion, and that Hinduism is a composite of various regional cults and philosophies. In the 19th century, Indians who wished to create a western style 'nation', invented Hinduism as a western style 'religion'. They simplified and remoulded India's unfathomably rich inheritance of beliefs and practices into something resembling a western creed. The same thing happened in Japan when they came across Europeans - Shintoism didnt exist before that time either. We dont need to define ourselves in western terms any more. There is no reason why a collection of diverse Indian dharmic religion which we call Hinduism must be slowly turned into a Christianity clone, where scriptures become dogma and gospel, where avatars in epics become prophets, with blasphemy rules for any who speak against them, and where morality becomes monopolised by political fanatics. It is instead better to follow the example of our neighbours to the east, who are spiritual without adopting two of the west's worst failings, namely nationalism and organised religion. To do anything else would futher exacerbate sectarian divisions, and create them where they did not exist before. To treat religion how our ancestors did would appeal more to the net generation of free-thinking youth, instead of forcing them to turn away, as so many Christians now do in the west. In other words Hinduism was brilliant as it was, dont change it for the sake of Semitic religions that were created by squabbling Arab tribes. Islam and Christianity are dogmatic cults that are far more likely to degenerate into fanatical movements than the rational Dharmic religions. Yet, in India, there are Hindus who rival the Taliban in their conservativism. And in India there are people with no religion who rival the Saudi Arabians in their fanaticism. It seems to me that any strong ideal, whether religious or secular, is equally capable of being perverted. In the end, India's Muslims and India's Christians are no more threatening to India's security than any group of idealists, from Hindus to Communists to Buddhists to Capitalists. They are human beings with human motives, and if there can be Hindus who enjoy liberalism, there can also be Muslims and Christians who can, no matter what their texts say. Gandhi encouraged people to go out and make friends with people from communities you dont normally interact with - he was wise enough to see that interaction will not only force you to re-evaluate your fears, but also you have the oppertunity to enlighten others about your own beliefs and make them respected. He said 'do this for your country', I say 'do this for yourself' - because it will create wellbeing in you. And this is what international studies also suggest - countries where neighbours and communities interact, like the Netherlands and Scandanavia, have little violence, and strong unity.

[CC1981]

whereas in comparison no north Indian empire ruled Tamil Nadu or Manipur, and no south Indian empire ruled further north than Orissa. Best to be satisfied with what you have.

Categorically false.

At this rate it would take hundreds of years for a religion to significantly impact Hinduism through population growth difference

Define 'significant impact'. A 10-15 % difference in balance is enough to make a huge difference. 13-85 and 25-70 are vastly different numbers. That sort of a demographic shift will happen in 200-250 yrs. And why shouldnt we be concerned ?

[gorah_pindu]

Define 'significant impact'. A 10-15 % difference in balance is enough to make a huge difference. 13-85 and 25-70 are vastly different numbers. That sort of a demographic shift will happen in 200-250 yrs. And why shouldnt we be concerned ?

India's population is expected to stop growing significantly this century - within 100 years, perhaps as little as 50. As you have pointed out, it would have taken centuries to reach 25% Muslim, assuming that no factor changed. And if it had done - then so what? Its their choice what they follow - and things change.

Categorically false.

If you are reffering to Deccan empires, I would have termed them 'central', and none of the ones that ruled the deep south extended far north. If you are reffering to the limited Delhi Sultanate and Mughal raids into the deep south and north east, they werent an 'empire'.

[gorah_pindu]

P.S., this book seems to be interesting, I am yet to read it, but take a look at the review: Ill be back later to see what people think of the thread - I am interested in your opinions. And of course Amartya Sen's 'The Argumentative Indian' covers similar topics.

[CC1981]

India's population is expected to stop growing significantly this century - within 100 years, perhaps as little as 50. As you have pointed out, it would have taken centuries to reach 25% Muslim, assuming that no factor changed. And if it had done - then so what? Its their choice what they follow - and things change.

Things change ? thats it ? you may not be aware but reproductive growth in muslim population is significantly higher than in non-islamic communities in India. I don't think i'd be too happy if the world went islamic, so i obviously am would like to deal with that threat. There are other ways than violence & genocide or mass displacement to deal with a problem such as this.

If you are reffering to the limited Delhi Sultanate and Mughal raids into the deep south and north east, they werent an 'empire'.

1. Ashoka ruled the entire subcontinent- states south of Kaveri and Sri Lanka were his vassals. 2. Jahangir & Aurangzeb ruled beyond the Kaveri. 3. Mentions of empires before Ashoka's in our literature most definitely encompasses most of the subcontinent. 4. India's analogy isnt to a nation - it is too diverse and its bounding factors are cultural. Therefore, India's appropriate equivalent would be the EU, provided Europeans grew up a bit more and could see themselves as one society.

[CC1981]

If you want western and Indian kids to buy dhotis instead of jeans in order to look like their favorite kshatriya cartoon hero, you have gotta be culturally open and innovative.

Completely agreed. Indians have to be aware of the enormity of their culture and its history to realize how we shouldnt fear the American culture or Europe- but it is our ignorance of our own culture that leads to blindly aping the western culture and that is a loss to our culture due to 'enslaved minds', too quick to adopt culture because of the financial perceived superiority of the west. I silently chuckle at that- especially the ones who are too quick to turn their values into western consumer populace model. Its funny to sometimes run into Joes who think American 'culture' or British culture is even a worthy comparison for Indian culture- a better scale would be to compare entire European culture to India's and even then, historically/diversity factored in, Europe falls far short. A culture that can perhaps only be approached in ancience, diversity & scale by China has nothing to fear- provided it is aware of its roots & the enormity/scale of its (India's) culture.

To treat religion how our ancestors did would appeal more to the net generation of free-thinking youth, instead of forcing them to turn away, as so many Christians now do in the west. In other words Hinduism was brilliant as it was, dont change it for the sake of Semitic religions that were created by squabbling Arab tribes.

Spot on. This is why i take issues with D_R or Bheembhai's modus operandi or extrapolation of the issue. Whoever said hinduism isn't dogmatic needs to talk to these two 'gents' and their hinduvta counterparts. I am afraid, we've become too much like the islamists we hate and the trend is continuing. But then again, it is an action-reaction balance.

and if there can be Hindus who enjoy liberalism, there can also be Muslims and Christians who can, no matter what their texts say.

True, but its all about ratios. What is the ratio of liberal muslims to conservative ones ? How does that compare ? Having lived in the middle east, the west and hailing from one of the more muslim states of India ( West Bengal has one of the higher % muslim populations), i can easily say that while extremist hindus like D_R/Bheembhai are 5-10% of Hindu society, if not less, the similar figure for islamic community/societies would be closer to 20-25%.

Gandhi encouraged people to go out and make friends with people from communities you dont normally interact with - he was wise enough to see that interaction will not only force you to re-evaluate your fears

Spot on. Ever wonder why Kolkata, despite having a *huge* muslim population and practically a stone's throw from a muslim country (former Pakistan/now Bangladesh) has so little instances of hindu-muslim riots or sectarian violence ? The answer lies on one particular road of Kolkata, that is rather long ( 15 -20 blocks in the area) : College Street. it is lined with coffee-houses (and these days, mini-bars), the scale of which would make starbucks or Blenz goggle- 3 storey hall-way like victorian houses (and some modern ones) that can easily house several hundred guests. it is a big thing for kolkata community to go sit around and chat in the College st. coffee houses- i don't know many people who are below 40 and don't have 'college st. nights' where you just go and socialize with 1000s of people. This is the secret to Kolkata's lack of sectarian violence (except for in 1940s partition related time).

[gorah_pindu]

Things change ? thats it ? you may not be aware but reproductive growth in muslim population is significantly higher than in non-islamic communities in India. I don't think i'd be too happy if the world went islamic' date=' so i obviously am would like to deal with that threat. There are other ways than violence & genocide or mass displacement to deal with a problem such as this.[/quote'] I wouldnt like the world to become boring and oppressed either - but rational examination of my fears led me to see that they are largely baseless. No matter how much another section of the population grows, its not like Hindus, Buddhists, Jains or Sikhs are experiencing negative growth. There will still be more than one billion Indian Hindus in future barring an asteroid strike, and I dare say the population growth of other communities will not continue forever, especially with economic and educational growth. The worst way to deal with this would be to oppress minorities, since they grow faster in poorer economic conditions - thus the Hindutva people are being counter-productive in the extreme - and the idea of reservation may actually have merit - especially for women, since career women have less children.

1. Ashoka ruled the entire subcontinent- states south of Kaveri and Sri Lanka were his vassals. 2. Jahangir & Aurangzeb ruled beyond the Kaveri. 3. Mentions of empires before Ashoka's in our literature most definitely encompasses most of the subcontinent.

Neither the Mauryans nor Mughals ruled all of what is today within India. For example southern Tamil Nadu and southern Kerala, which despite Ashoka's claims, were not even tributarys, but mearly 'friends', and the Mughals raided as far south as Madurai, but never directly ruled there. This can be alarming for an Indian such as you or me to accept because of the seperatist fuss the LTTE and other idiotic groups have stirred up, but it is the truth. I am certain of this, having studied Indian history extensively for years in my own spare time, so please take my word on it. As you say - we are more like the EU, so it dosent matter.

4. India's analogy isnt to a nation - it is too diverse and its bounding factors are cultural. Therefore, India's appropriate equivalent would be the EU, provided Europeans grew up a bit more and could see themselves as one society.

I would argue that all states are like India/EU - just that most dont want to see themselves as such. I.E. China has attempted to portray itself as a monolithic entity, but in reality, they are a collection of cultures as variable as anything in Europe or India, despite how the Maoists tried to wipe out all diversity during the cultural revolution.

[gorah_pindu]

Completely agreed. Indians have to be aware of the enormity of their culture and its history to realize how we shouldnt fear the American culture or Europe- but it is our ignorance of our own culture that leads to blindly aping the western culture and that is a loss to our culture due to 'enslaved minds', too quick to adopt culture because of the financial perceived superiority of the west. I silently chuckle at that- especially the ones who are too quick to turn their values into western consumer populace model. Its funny to sometimes run into Joes who think American 'culture' or British culture is even a worthy comparison for Indian culture- a better scale would be to compare entire European culture to India's and even then, historically/diversity factored in, Europe falls far short. A culture that can perhaps only be approached in ancience, diversity & scale by China has nothing to fear- provided it is aware of its roots & the enormity/scale of its (India's) culture. Spot on. This is why i take issues with D_R or Bheembhai's modus operandi or extrapolation of the issue. Whoever said hinduism isn't dogmatic needs to talk to these two 'gents' and their hinduvta counterparts. I am afraid, we've become too much like the islamists we hate and the trend is continuing. But then again, it is an action-reaction balance. True, but its all about ratios. What is the ratio of liberal muslims to conservative ones ? How does that compare ? Having lived in the middle east, the west and hailing from one of the more muslim states of India ( West Bengal has one of the higher % muslim populations), i can easily say that while extremist hindus like D_R/Bheembhai are 5-10% of Hindu society, if not less, the similar figure for islamic community/societies would be closer to 20-25%. Spot on. Ever wonder why Kolkata, despite having a *huge* muslim population and practically a stone's throw from a muslim country (former Pakistan/now Bangladesh) has so little instances of hindu-muslim riots or sectarian violence ? The answer lies on one particular road of Kolkata, that is rather long ( 15 -20 blocks in the area) : College Street. it is lined with coffee-houses (and these days, mini-bars), the scale of which would make starbucks or Blenz goggle- 3 storey hall-way like victorian houses (and some modern ones) that can easily house several hundred guests. it is a big thing for kolkata community to go sit around and chat in the College st. coffee houses- i don't know many people who are below 40 and don't have 'college st. nights' where you just go and socialize with 1000s of people. This is the secret to Kolkata's lack of sectarian violence (except for in 1940s partition related time).

Thanks, I would be interested to see what DR and bheemabhai think of this too. My post was more an attempt to make people think about the issue, rather than to persuade people.

[gorah_pindu]

P.S. CC, see what you think of the book review posted above.

[CC1981]

No matter how much another section of the population grows, its not like Hindus, Buddhists, Jains or Sikhs are experiencing negative growth

In terms of cultural/social impact, it doesnt have to be negetive growth absolutely- for a culture to be overshadowed, the growth rate has to be negetive relative to its competitor- thats all.

The worst way to deal with this would be to oppress minorities, since they grow faster in poorer economic conditions - thus the Hindutva people are being counter-productive in the extreme - and the idea of reservation may actually have merit - especially for women, since career women have less children.

Completely agreed with that part. I don't advocate action against muslims (apart from the terrorist ones) but clandestine level of undermining Islam for what it is, is a required effort.

Neither the Mauryans nor Mughals ruled all of what is today within India.

False. Mauryan empire had complete political control over entire subcontinent- they didnt swallow up each and every kingdom under the sun- they were happy to turn some into vassalages.

For example southern Tamil Nadu and southern Kerala, which despite Ashoka's claims, were not even tributarys, but mearly 'friends',

False. The accounts of the Mauryans and the Greeks corroborate that Bimbisar, Ashoka's father ( or was it Bindusar ? i cant remember) had conquered or turned all land between the seas into vassals.( which was defined as all land between bay of bengal & arabian sea, south of narmada & Godavari) As per the Mughal claim- technically it is correct, but their borders streched to the northern frontier of kaveri. And if you see how far south madurai is, it is quibbling over literally nothing. And if same standards are applied to the Roman empire, it'd look much smaller than it is potrayed in the Eurocentric maps. Many of the Roman holdings around Danube and asia minor were vassalages too- far more troublesome & rebellious than the southermost vassalages were to the Mauryan empire.

I would argue that all states are like India/EU - just that most dont want to see themselves as such. I.E. China has attempted to portray itself as a monolithic entity, but in reality, they are a collection of cultures as variable as anything in Europe or India, despite how the Maoists tried to wipe out all diversity during the cultural revolution.

False. I have travelled extensively and the scale of diversity in india boggles beleif if evaluated simply on a national benchmark. Do you realize that today, 40% of Indians cannot even communicate with each other due to illiteracy & prevaling languages ? That is how diverse we are. No other nation is home to as many developed languages ( as in, languages with codified grammar & literature tradition, not just a spoken form as found in Papua New Guinea), no other nations have so many seperate substratum culture. China as i said (and who's history i respect a lot too), is quite clearly the next best comparison to India but to think that every nation has similar levels of cultural diversity & regions resembling India is just being minimalist for the sake of it. if you want a good analogy to India, i'd say imagine the Entire EU just turns into a country, with England, France, Germany, etc. all being provinces/states like kerala,Maharashtra,Bengal, etc. and EU has its own currency, constitution & military force (with no state/province in Europe retaining military control), then you'd have created India in Europe.

[gorah_pindu]

You will find that every map of the Mauryan Empire fails to include the southern tip of India, and this is for a reason. Please trust me on this, because every history book you will ever read will say as much. If you are wondering why the Chotta Nagpur hills are also not shaded in the map above, it is because many sources say Ashoka was unable to subdue tribes in this area - other maps will have this piece shaded in. P.S. I co-wrote this article with an expert on Greek and Indian history, using primary references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire

[CC1981]

You will find that every map of the Mauryan Empire fails to include the southern tip of India, and this is for a reason.

Maps made by and based on western scholarship.

Please trust me on this, because every history book you will ever read will say as much.

Every history book ? I am sorry but i have read significant amounts of ancient history as well as pre-enlightenment western history. Most of it utterly blows the history presented in school texts & university texts over the last 100-150 yrs into oblivion. Most conventional western historic notions are being challenged as of recently because there are some pretty categoric evidence that the west 'santized' its own history in the last 300-400 years due to rising culture of 'white racism' in that period. There are many cases where ancient historical records openly contradict western notions of history.

P.S. I co-wrote this article with an expert on Greek and Indian history, using primary references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire

I happen to own Megasthenes' account of ancient India. I have read that article and i congratulate you on a remarkably well written article. But i find it is not without its holes in terms of span of the empire and its zone of influence. As i said, if the standards applied to the Roman Empire is applied to the Mauryan empire, entire Subcontinent is most definitely under Mauryan authority. And if the same standard applied to Mauryan empire by western scholarship is applied to the Roman Empire, its extent of borders would be lesser. It is ridiculous to think that The Mauryan border terminated just 500 Km east of its capital while it extended over 2500 km to its western border. It is mentioned in Megasthenes's record as well as other Roman (and Indian) sources that kamrup (Assam) & Manipur, as far as Irrawady river was under the influence of Ashoka and indeed, Burmese history also corroborrates this. Just like ancient Rome had its overall empire divided into 'imperial territory & vassal territorry', Mauryan dimensions shown in most maps are strictly imperial territorry maps & does not include vassal territorry as it does in case of the Romans. I am sorry to say this, but when it comes to world history, i have very little faith in the established western scholarship on the issue. It may not be outright racist against it like 30 years ago but it is still very much biassed in its conception.

[gorah_pindu]

False. I have travelled extensively and the scale of diversity in india boggles beleif if evaluated simply on a national benchmark. Do you realize that today, 40% of Indians cannot even communicate with each other due to illiteracy & prevaling languages ? That is how diverse we are. No other nation is home to as many developed languages ( as in, languages with codified grammar & literature tradition, not just a spoken form as found in Papua New Guinea), no other nations have so many seperate substratum culture. China as i said (and who's history i respect a lot too), is quite clearly the next best comparison to India but to think that every nation has similar levels of cultural diversity & regions resembling India is just being minimalist for the sake of it. if you want a good analogy to India, i'd say imagine the Entire EU just turns into a country, with England, France, Germany, etc. all being provinces/states like kerala,Maharashtra,Bengal, etc. and EU has its own currency, constitution & military force (with no state/province in Europe retaining military control), then you'd have created India in Europe.

What I said isnt catagorically false, but rather is a difference on what we mean by diversity. You are attempting to quantify it on lines of lingual and cultural difference. I on the other hand believe all states are as diverse, because I believe that the smallest cultural unit is a single human - and that thus, all human society as the same 'diversity per capita'. You are free to disagree with my opinion, but starting a paragraph with the catagorical statement 'false' will only start an argument where none is neccecary.

[gorah_pindu]

Maps made by and based on western scholarship. Every history book ? I am sorry but i have read significant amounts of ancient history as well as pre-enlightenment western history. Most of it utterly blows the history presented in school texts & university texts over the last 100-150 yrs into oblivion. Most conventional western historic notions are being challenged as of recently because there are some pretty categoric evidence that the west 'santized' its own history in the last 300-400 years due to rising culture of 'white racism' in that period. There are many cases where ancient historical records openly contradict western notions of history.

During the writing of several wiki articles, I said the same thing - indeed I was a counterweight to Europe-centric history. But in the end, even I could not argue with the evidence presented in this case. Im afraid that the evidence is overwhealming, and that our own nationalist bias dosent change the truth. Even the Mauryan Empire's own records do not list the southernmost chiefs as 'vassals', but merely 'friendly kingdoms', which did not even pay tribute. They may have acknolwedged Mauryan superiority, but were not politically part of the Mauryan Empire in any way, not even as a vassal, which themselves are often not counted. Furthermore, note that his empire never extended anywhere near the northeasternmost provinces of modern day India.

[CC1981]

I on the other hand believe all states are as diverse, because I believe that the smallest cultural unit is a single human - and that thus, all human society as the same 'diversity per capita'.

Not really. Cultural diversity arises from diversity in like, thought, linguistic conception, etc etc. You are not equally different from the average Brit in culture than you are to the average Polish. So your assumption of cultual diversity ultimately being equal per capita is flawed. Not only that, for your assumption to be true, it has to be assumed that all cultures are equally culturally rich in traditions and as culturally inclined. Having lived in the middle east, i can safely say that average Iranians have far higher cultural involvement and depth than the average Qatari. And i can say the same for Britain/Canada when equated with India. All levels of quantifiable diversity in European/North American nations can be made analogous to the states in Indian Union.

You are free to disagree with my opinion,

I just dont see any factual grounding as the basis of this opinion.

Even the Mauryan Empire's own records do not list the southernmost chiefs as 'vassals', but merely 'friendly kingdoms', which did not even pay tribute.

False. Mauryan records for one, are patchy & fragemented due to the desecration of most of our history by Islamic sources. For two, It is actually mentioned in Mauryan works that Ashoka (after conversion to Buddhism) did away with the tribute the southern nations & Karup paid to the Mauryan empire, maintaining only political & international suzerainty. For two, Sri Lankan & Burmese record and oral history corroborrate this as fact, not to mention, Megasthenes as well.

Furthermore, note that his empire never extended anywhere near the northeasternmost provinces of modern day India.

False. Most of north east india and infact, western Burma ( in places, close to the Irrawady) were under Mauryan suzereinty, operating as vassals. this has been noted in oral traditions & fragmented written history of the Burmese and Thai people as well. As i said, the western historical/anthropological thinking pattern is nowhere as neutral as it makes it out to be- its fundamental assumptions & basis in history (ie, the philosophy behind it) is fundamentally geared towards an Euro-centric viewpoint. For example, western history places very little basis on oral traditions, when it has been proven by linguistic comparisons that oral history traditions have no greater level of ambiguity creeping in from written historic traditions. In short, i question the very rules by which they play by and their logical process in applying different analysis method that underscores a fundamentally euro-centric view.

[gorah_pindu]

Not everything from an outsider is neccecarily bad, my friend (this is related to the cultural openess we talked about earlier) - until you find real evidence in favour of your claims, the point is moot - thats how science works. But since you are in the frame of mind where any argument contrary to your opinion is automatically 'false', I dont believe I can talk to you any futher, nor do I wish to.

[CC1981]

until you find real evidence in favour of your claims, the point is moot - thats how science works.

Issue is with the philosophy of modern western history- which has its basis in the 1600s western mindset. As i said, there are flaws in western notions of history and historical scholarship. And i'd prefer you not to tell me how science works- i think i have a competent grasp of science with or without any external reinforcements. You are operating form the framework established by the flawed concept of historical analysis in the western scholarship. Pirmarily because western ideas of civilization, its extent or its historicity is quite narrow and retarded in nature. here is a lil tidbit for you to mull over- we al know of the 'caveman-to-civilization' progress pattern and nor do i dispute it. But what i do dispute is its timescale or its frame of reference. It is a fact that human beings and its close ancestors were capable of formulating speech as early as 100,000 years ago. Quite simply, extend the horizons by atleast 15-20,000 years and you might get closer to the real figure about history of civlization. If there is one conspiracy theory i will give credibility to, it is that 'real history is far more fantastic and unanswerable by convention wisdom than any flights of fancy people have'. When you have a 4th century BC book, already saying it is a copy of a previous and older text, starts talking about aircraft construction and describes the workings of a battery (including thermal effect on electrochemistry), extensive accounts of metal purification, scintifically accurate notions of jet-engine take off/landing, etc. i am sorry but the conventional notion of western history goes out of the window. I am not saying that the said text is 100% accurate or its insinuations 100% to be belived, but it is an oddity in the time-scale big enough for me to say western idea of history = cr@p. And i've read the text, front to back. And i trust you wouldnt doubt an engineer's ability to spot basic engineering concepts like batteries, metal purification, etc. This might be an example too extreme for you to handle but i think it fits in to the my issue with the fundamentally flawed philosophy behind western history.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Hindus are being converted. Other religions have a higher birth rate. Hinduism lost millions of followers in medieval times. But Hinduism is larger now than it has ever been isnt it? At this rate it would take hundreds of years for a religion to significantly impact Hinduism through population growth difference. And India's population growth is slowing - to the extent it will have probably stopped well before then. What does a community of a billion (or 1.5 billion if we include other Dharmic religions) have to fear, when it is only getting bigger all the time, and has never had so many followers? Not only that, but probably a higher proportion of Hindus now understand the philosophy they follow, than at any other time in history, due to literacy and education. GIMMIC when people say hidus number is dwindling they talk percentage. What it has to fear is same whihc resulted into partition even then absolute numbers were no less it's percentage that count. India lost Pakistan and Bangladesh due to partition. Look at the Chinese, they have grown bigger instead. But India is larger in land area now than most of its empires ever were isnt it? Pakistan has been ruled by Greeks, Persians and Arabs in the past, so hasnt always been 'Indian', having been host to the Greek and Persian religions, as well as their languages. India still contains one sixth of the world's population, which is no small figure. The Chinese have largely added inhospitable and uninhabited terrain to their state, and while the nationalist myths that led to the conquest of Tibet are false, their empire did once rule Tibet and Turkestan, whereas in comparison no north Indian empire ruled Tamil Nadu or Manipur, and no south Indian empire ruled further north than Orissa. Best to be satisfied with what you have. Check Maauryan empire gupta empire. Ruled by muslims and ruled by others is altogether different game. Others don't ethnically cleanse society blatanttly with a missinaory zeal. South India still was the safe haven for hindus all along except for islamists's abode. When people say India and talk of relgion they are not really bothered about empire monolyth they are talking in religious sense. U here keep alternating from religious world view to political world view erroneaously to put ur point across. India's culture is being wiped out by western trends. Everyone will be wearing jeans and eating McDonalds soon. America, Europe and Japan are all culturally successful because they are open. Thus people can find something they enjoy in any of these cultures, even if there is also stuff they disagree with - a foriegn kid might hate the American government, but listen to an American band that is anti-establishment - in the end, he is still being influenced by American culture. India is not open - anti-establishment trends at best get no publicity, and at worst, are censored. Until India is open, externally and internally, it will never be as powerful. If you want western and Indian kids to buy dhotis instead of jeans in order to look like their favorite kshatriya cartoon hero, you have gotta be culturally open and innovative. I don't think india is close society at al and cultural wiping by westereners is false alarm not going to happen. Hinduism is a 5000 year old religion that is the native belief system of the Indian people. Muslims believe that the Kaaba is the place where Abraham sacrificed his son to god, and was taken over by pagans before being restored to Islam by Mohammed. This is clearly a load of bullshit - the Kaaba was probably a pagan Arab shrine to a local god, that got converted into an Abrahamic one by Mohammed, in order to lend legitimacy to his movement. As much as I love Hinduism, I am also forced to point out that there has never been a single Hindu religion, and that Hinduism is a composite of various regional cults and philosophies. In the 19th century, Indians who wished to create a western style 'nation', invented Hinduism as a western style 'religion'. They simplified and remoulded India's unfathomably rich inheritance of beliefs and practices into something resembling a western creed. The same thing happened in Japan when they came across Europeans - Shintoism didnt exist before that time either. We dont need to define ourselves in western terms any more. There is no reason why a collection of diverse Indian dharmic religion which we call Hinduism must be slowly turned into a Christianity clone, where scriptures become dogma and gospel, where avatars in epics become prophets, with blasphemy rules for any who speak against them, and where morality becomes monopolised by political fanatics. It is instead better to follow the example of our neighbours to the east, who are spiritual without adopting two of the west's worst failings, namely nationalism and organised religion. To do anything else would futher exacerbate sectarian divisions, and create them where they did not exist before. To treat religion how our ancestors did would appeal more to the net generation of free-thinking youth, instead of forcing them to turn away, as so many Christians now do in the west. In other words Hinduism was brilliant as it was, dont change it for the sake of Semitic religions that were created by squabbling Arab tribes. I would say nomenclature wrappings hardly matter. Point is the ethos are very old yes keep evolving but to say it started in 19th century is utter garbage. Islam and Christianity are dogmatic cults that are far more likely to degenerate into fanatical movements than the rational Dharmic religions. Yet, in India, there are Hindus who rival the Taliban in their conservativism. And in India there are people with no religion who rival the Saudi Arabians in their fanaticism. It seems to me that any strong ideal, whether religious or secular, is equally capable of being perverted. In the end, India's Muslims and India's Christians are no more threatening to India's security than any group of idealists, from Hindus to Communists to Buddhists to Capitalists. They are human beings with human motives, and if there can be Hindus who enjoy liberalism, there can also be Muslims and Christians who can, no matter what their texts say. Gandhi encouraged people to go out and make friends with people from communities you dont normally interact with - he was wise enough to see that interaction will not only force you to re-evaluate your fears, but also you have the oppertunity to enlighten others about your own beliefs and make them respected. He said 'do this for your country', I say 'do this for yourself' - because it will create wellbeing in you. And this is what international studies also suggest - countries where neighbours and communities interact, like the Netherlands and Scandanavia, have little violence, and strong unity. Too much theory here. fact is India has ever been accomodating of any persecuted religion anywhere throughout hstory blows this baseless theory apart. I have asked many this question Praveen Togadia hapepns to be pinnacle of hindu fundamentalism but here are his words addressing muslim ulema: "let us sit together and purge our religious texts from the uncomfortable edicts towards each other." Midn this the mosta fnaatic of them speaking. Now go ahead find me simialr sentiments even from the most liberal of any abrahmic religion. Problme wiht u guys is u have this impulse to somehow drag everything down to the same $hit and then say everybody is same. it's nothing like that. Thousand years of tolerant historay doesn't get discredited just like that. Look no further beyond my signature to find the real truth about lack of dogma in hinduism.

[sandtest]

Let's just focus ourselves, what are the threats to Dharma (Hinduism, Buddhisms, Sikhism and Sufism) I live in India and travel to middle east, so I can't offer views from western perspective. I think modern day threat to Dharma in particular and Nation in large is the slow and sure and hidden assault of Chrisitian Missionaries/CIA funded Evangelical-jihad and more visible Islamists. problem with followers of Dharma is that majority of them who got converted or are in the process of conversion are not aware of true nature of Dharma, and this is why they are easily brainwashed by Abrahmic pseudo-monothiesm charm. Awareness about Dharma and freedom of worship which comes with this, even atheism is also a part of Dharma ( i guess Sankhya is more atheistic in nature). "Chose freedom, Chose Dharma" should be the slogan for India in next century to counter the ambititious assault of Islamism and Evangelicalism.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Let's just focus ourselves, what are the threats to Dharma (Hinduism, Buddhisms, Sikhism and Sufism) I live in India and travel to middle east, so I can't offer views from western perspective. I think modern day threat to Dharma in particular and Nation in large is the slow and sure and hidden assault of Chrisitian Missionaries/CIA funded Evangelical-jihad and more visible Islamists. problem with followers of Dharma is that majority of them who got converted or are in the process of conversion are not aware of true nature of Dharma, and this is why they are easily brainwashed by Abrahmic pseudo-monothiesm charm. Awareness about Dharma and freedom of worship which comes with this, even atheism is also a part of Dharma ( i guess Sankhya is more atheistic in nature). "Chose freedom, Chose Dharma" should be the slogan for India in next century to counter the ambititious assault of Islamism and Evangelicalism.

kahan the ab tak aap:thumbs_up: