Dalit groom wears helmet during marriage procession as upper caste people threw stones

[Invasion 550]

You do know though that forefathers ofvast majority of Muslims of subcontinent are converts from Hinduism?

You do know that forefathers of those forefathers are from Africa, right? Anyway, what is your point?

[randomGuy]

You do know that forefathers of those forefathers are from Africa, right? Anyway, what is your point?

The point is that They converted but retained their caste. (When I google my own surname, it tells me that its a clan of Muslim rajputs. I am nonreligious Hindu and people from my caste converted, those who didn't convert moved to India on partition like my grandfather) One of the benefits of subcontinent Muslims daily reminding themselves that their forefathers were Hindus would be less religious conflicts, more religious harmony.

[Invasion 550]

The point is that They converted but retained their caste. (When I google my own surname, it tells me that its a clan of Muslim rajputs. I am nonreligious Hindu and people from my caste converted, those who didn't convert moved to India on partition like my grandfather) One of the benefits of subcontinent Muslims daily reminding themselves that their forefathers were Hindus would be less religious conflicts, more religious harmony.

Exactly. Thats why i brought the cultural point. Dowry, caste system and other things are carried forward from the Indian culture which is originally Hindu. Thats why our weddings and other events are so similar as well. Oh, yes. Many rajputs converted to Islam during Mughal rule. I am a Mughal Barlas per say, so my forefathers were prolly Muslim. Even if they werent doesnt matters, honestly. Also, adding to the convo. Do you and other icfers think a person's caste has an effect on their personality? I think it does.

[randomGuy]

Also, adding to the convo. Do you and other icfers think a person's caste has an effect on their personality? I think it does.

Everything depends on upbringing not on caste. I do think the combined ego of casteist people needs to be brought down, for ex. I suggest for those casteist jaats who killed dalits due to land dispute to be butt f**ked in public by dalits as an additional punishment to the present law. This way the rest of the casteist jaats would know what modern day India stands for and their ego would be brought down seeing one of their own getting butt f**ked.

[jalebi_bhai]

I am saying that people interpret the verses in their own way and therefore there are sects. Just like in Christianity. However, the core beliefs are same. What i meant by corruption was not in islam but people's life specifically the subcontinental Muslims which have adopted foreign practises into their daily lives. Its more cultural like i mentioned in the next sentence rather than corruption.

Isn't Shia-Sunni conflict based on whether Abu Baqar or Ali takes over from Prophet Muhammed? Secondly, is dowry still practiced in Pakistan?

[Invasion 550]

Isn't Shia-Sunni conflict based on whether Abu Baqar or Ali takes over from Prophet Muhammed? Secondly, is dowry still practiced in Pakistan?

Yes, it totally does stems from there. So, its not religious mainly. Its more political. Shias go out of their way to revere Ali which is shady to many people because they suspect that maybe they take him as a some sort of a inheritor after Prophet Muhammad whereas Quran declared him the seal of prophets. They also have their twelever imam system which is different from what Sunnis believe. In sunni belief each Caliph got rightly in their position and all are equally respectable. Yes, dowry is very much practised in Pakistan. Its part and parcel of marriages.

[Invasion 550]

Everything depends on upbringing not on caste. I do think the combined ego of casteist people needs to be brought down, for ex. I suggest for those casteist jaats who killed dalits due to land dispute to be butt f**ked in public by dalits as an additional punishment to the present law. This way the rest of the casteist jaats would know what modern day India stands for and their ego would be brought down seeing one of their own getting butt f**ked.

I think i got to agree you on that. I feel india is very much tolerable, more tolerable than its neighbour which it should be because its secular. And i want india to stay this way because religious extremism in India is going to be extremely disastrous because it will be magnified on so many levels.

[Crookbond]

To what extent? Regionalism is more of a problem in cities from my experience.

You are using rural areas as a benchmark, that is not even worth of a benchmark or comparison. Caste, regionalism and religion all three are problems in cities.

[Crookbond]

I think the fault lines existed, but caste based discrimination went full blown under the British. Read the part call 'crystallizing caste' from the below link: Quite a startling admission by L. Middleton, don't you think? As I said above, there were fault lines that may have been widened with the invasions. If the caste system was as historically flawed as some people say, how did Buddha, who was born into a Kshatriya family, be accepted as the spiritual head of an intercontinental religious philosophy? We were a Buddhist nation at one point in time.

British politicized it - caste based fault lines were creation of our glorious ancestors even during the vedic eras. Lets STOP pointing fingers.

[Gollum]

Really insightful read. I didnt know that there was another upper caste as well namely the Kshatriyas. Because all we hear of are brahmins. I am actually glad that the low caste are at least dominant in some states. Like honestly its not their fault that they were born in low castes and such stuff is very inhumane but very widely practised from the looks of it. You know in our country, the caste scene is not that hot but if for instance i am a Mughal Barllas, i prolly wont marry a marasi ( very low caste, usually dhol walay). However, that is very small scale. Also another question and let me know if its offensive. I have yet to delve into the Hindu religion however why are Iyers and Ivengars fighting over a god when they follow the same religion? As in how many gods exist like Shiva, vishnu, hanuman etc.? Spot on about younger generation being more accepting. But i think its because we are in educated people, the rest of the younger generation might feel the same way as their ancestors which explains some support for terror elements in Pakistan as well. Because people are super ignorant.

@Invasion glad to have this discussion, apologies for my below post, quite detailed(and long :winky:) and hopefully easy to understand in case you are interested. The caste system in Hinduism is as old as the religion itself. Many right wing lunatics/RSS/BJP have the view that invaders(Muslims and then Christians) brought it upon us and they are responsible for caste divisions in India. Nothing is farther from the truth, caste system is a part and parcel of Hinduism(not entirely bad in concept but misused over the millenia) and many just don't want to accept it as such, they get very defensive when you raise this issue and don't want to discuss faults in their religion. Of course invaders used these divisions to their advantage and this helped them subjugate the massive Hindu population politically but caste divisions were a reality since ancient times.It is similar to 'jihad'-I don't know but I don't think it is mentioned in Koran to simply instigate violence against non believers, it has been misinterpreted and misused by bad people over the years to justify their acts of intolerance and violent actions. No real Prophet will ask his/her followers to take the path of mindless violence. Whatever is written in the holy Koran must be studied/analyzed w.r.t the prevailing situation/political climate/environment in the 6th century at the time the message was revealed. May be it was the need of the times to safeguard the religion/ideology from enemies(Correct me if I am wrong,you must know better). Even in Hinduism acts of violence by Gods/Goddesses are common, Lord Krishna gave the sermon(Bhagvad Gita) to Arjun to fight/kill/defeat the opponent Kauravas(in which Arjun's brothers,uncles,extended family) fought. Wars between Devas(supernatural beings) and Asuras(demons) with involvement of Gods/Goddesses is very common in our holy scriptures. But the message was always of good triumphing over evil and violence was justified. Similarly the caste system must be looked at w.r.t the time when it was revealed(Ancient times, around 1750 BC). In the ancient Rig Vedic period the people were divided into 4 main classes/'varnas'(in order of ranking with 1 being highest rank): 1. Brahmins('Knowledge'; Priests,Teachers,Liason between man and Gods) 2. Kshatriyas('Valor, knowledge of weapons, governance'; Royals,Nobles,Military) 3. Vaishyas(Agriculture and Cattle Rearing,Traders) 4. Shudras(Serve the other 3 castes) During that time the system of division was fair and flexible. Intelligent people were Brahmins; brave/fighters were Kshatriyas; skilful artisans/traders/cattle rearers/farmers were Vaishyas and those who didn't have any of the above talents were Shudras, eg laborers. Ancient Hindu texts suggest that the caste system was not rigid. There are examples of men born to families belonging to Vaishya/Shudra caste performing tapasya(nun like celibate lifestyle) and becoming maharishis(sages,Brahmin caste). This flexibility permitted the dacoit Valmiki who was a Shudra by birth to become a Maharshi and compose the Ramayana, which was widely adopted and became a major Hindu scripture. The Mahabharata declares that birth ancestry, sacraments or study alone cannot decide whether a person is a Brahmin; only character and behaviour can do so. Some Brahmans were also warriors. Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa, son of a Brahmin sage Parashara and a fisher woman Satyavathi, in his Mahabharata, describes several warriors belonging to Brahmin caste, such as Dronacharya, Ashwatthama, Kripacharya, Parashuram etc. Other ancient texts cite numerous examples of individuals moving from one caste to another within their lifetimes. So as you see it wasn't unreasonable and corrupt in it's initial stages. The varna(caste) system became rigid in the later Vedic period(around 500 BC). The main reason was that the people then started feeling that 'the son of a teacher will genetically be intelligent','son of a warrior will also be a braveheart' and so on and so forth. Of course genetics wasn't the hot topic of discussion those days but people believed that traits of parents are passed over to children. Also the children who spent their childhood with the parents were more likely to pick up the father's occupation/get trained by the father. Only Shudras were disadvantaged then because no Shudra wanted to follow his father as a labourer/servant/cremator of the dead but then, no choice. By then the other castes started looking down upon these people because according to them they were filthy/polluted/disgusting and hence they became social outcasts. So started the social evil that cast away one of the varnas to doom. Kshatriyas were kings, nobles,warriors etc,so they were always in a position of power and wealthy. But some of the Kshatriyas who didn't have the appetite for violence became traders, went to agriculture etc. Brahmins were the priests, teachers/advisors for kings and continued to be among the top of the chain. Kshatriyas and Brahmins always worked in tandem in keeping control of the province. Vaishyas branched out into many forms and were the backbone of the economy. By now the caste system was almost completely hereditary and remained so for the next 2000-2200 years. In this time period all castes had hundreds of sub castes, the entire branching out became more and more complicated and mistrust between various varnas/sub castes/ sub sub castes.... increased to a historic high point. This was an impediment in the unity of the provinces who easily fell prey to Muslim invaders. To illustrate the magnitude of subdivision let me show you a few of the prominent sub castes/ sub sub castes of the Brahmin varna: Brahmins Pancha Gauda Brahmin..(north of the Vindhya mountains) White portion:North of the Vindhyas. The Vindhyas are considered as the traditional boundary between North and South India. Saraswat Brahmins Saraswat Brahmin Kashmiri Pandits Goud Saraswat Brahmin Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin Rajapur Saraswat Brahmin Kudaldeshkar Gaud Brahman Kashyap Daivajna brahmin Kanyakubja Brahmins Gaur Brahmin Sanadya Brahmin Kamrupi Brahmins Kanyakubja Brahmin Saryupareen Brahmin Sakaldwipiya Brahmins Pareek Brahmins Saraswat Brahmin Pushkarna Brahmin Gauda Brahmins The Brahmins from historical region of Gauḍa(modern day Bengal and Bangladesh) are known as Gauda Brahmins. Pancha-Dravida Brahmin(South of the Vindhyas) Pancha-Dravida Brahmins are found in present day states of: Andhra Pradesh and Telangana- The Telugu Brahmins of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are broadly classified into four groups: Vaidiki Brahmins, Niyogi, Dravida Brahmins, and Vaikhānasa. Niyogis are further divided into the following subcategories: Nandavarika Niyogi, Prathama Shakha Niyogi, Aaru Vela Niyogulu, Karanaalu, Sistukaranalu, Karana kamma vyaparlu, Karanakammulu. Dravida (Tamil Nadu and Kerala)- Iyengar (Tamil Nadu, sub-divided into Vadakalai and Thenkalai) Iyer (Tamil Nadu, sub-divided further into Vadama, Vathima, Brahacharanam, Ashtasahasram, Sholiyar, Dikshitar, Kaniyalar, Prathamasaki) Nambudiri(Kerala) Pushpaka Brahmins(Kerala) Gujarat- Gujarati Brahmins consist of various sub-castes such as : Aboti Brahmins Modh Brahmins Nagar Brahmins Audichya Brahmin Bardai Brahmins Anavil Brahmin Nodera Brahmin Khedaval Brahmins Karnataka Hoysala Karnataka Brahmins Smartha Brahmins Halenadu Karnataka Brahmin Madhwa Brahmins Mysore Iyengars Kota Brahmins Tuluva Brahmins, which consist of Kandavara Brahmins, Karhade Brahmins, Padia Brahmins, Saklapuri Brahmins, Shivalli Brahmins, Smartha Shivalli Brahmins, Sthanika Brahmins, Padarthi Brahmins. Havyaka Brahmin Gowda Saraswat Brahmins Maharashtra Chitpavan Konkanastha Brahmin, Deshastha Brahmin and Karhade Brahmin There are other sects, what I have named above hardly comprises 50% of the Brahmin divisions. There are Brahmins based in Nepal,Burma,Thailand,Indonesia,Sri lanka, other South Indian domains. Similarly other castes have also branched out like crazy. can't write each one of them because then my post will be 10 pages long :haha:. So you see how divided our Hindu society was in the medieval period, those who blame Muslims/Christians for dividing our religion must look into themselves. I am a right wing Hindu who is a supporter of BJP/RSS. Take it from my mouth, Muslims have zero role in dividing our religion any further. Any body who blames Muslims(and there quite a few in this country) is simply a hater/conspiracy theorist with no rational claims/historical knowledge. Muslim invaders were mighty and powerful but they didn't have the tactical nous/foresight of the British who brought in the system of 'divide and rule' in modern day India. They divided Hindus and Muslims, one caste from another and ruled us idiots efficiently for 200 years with very few British personnel camped here.The caste system became legally rigid during the Raj,when the British started to enumerate castes during the ten-year census(1901-1911) and meticulously codified the system under their rule. In the round table conference held on August 1932, upon the request of Ambedkar, the then Prime Minister of Britain, Ramsay Macdonald made a Communal Award which awarded a provision for separate representation for the Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans and Dalits(origin from Shudras, they are the lowest sub caste among Shudras, also called as untouchables/Schedule Castes in present times). These depressed classes were assigned a number of seats to be filled by election from special constituencies in which voters belonging to the depressed classes only could vote. Gandhi went on a hunger strike against this provision claiming that such an arrangement would split the Hindu community into two groups. Years later, Ambedkar wrote that Gandhi's fast was a form of coercion.This agreement, which saw Gandhi end his fast and Ambedkar drop his demand for a separate electorate, was called the Poona Pact. Beyond this I have no knowledge of Britishers poking their noses in Hindu caste affairs. Modern times The Indian government officially recognizes historically discriminated communities of India such as the Untouchables under the designation of Scheduled Castes, and certain economically backward Shudra castes as Other Backward Castes.The Scheduled Castes are sometimes referred to as Dalits in contemporary literature. In 2001, the proportion of Dalit population was 16.2 percent of India's total population.According to the 2001 census it is estimated that Hindu Forward caste comprises 26%, Other Backward Class comprises 43%, Hindu Scheduled Castes (Dalits) comprises 22% and Hindu Scheduled Tribes comprises 9%. Article 15 of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination based on caste and Article 17 declared the practice of untouchability to be illegal. In 1955, India enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act (renamed in 1976, as the Protection of Civil Rights Act). It extended the reach of law, from intent to mandatory enforcement. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was passed in India in 1989. So today legally the lower castes have the full backing of the state. We have had Dalit Presidents,Chief Ministers,Chief Justices,Speakers,MPs,MLAs,entrepreneurs etc. Most government jobs/educational institutes have a very high % of seats reserved for OBCs,SC/STs. In fact the reservation in educational seats is so much that the forward castes are fed up of them. Very difficult for forward castes to get seats in IITs,IIMs,IISc etc because of very little seats and heavy competition. The lower castes have ridiculously low cut offs and dunces get into these prestigious institutes lowering the standards. In some states Brahmins(who ironically are the biggest minority in terms of % population @ <2%) have almost 0 representation in government offices and opportunities are quite limited. So most of the forward caste students especially Brahmins are forced to go overseas seeking better growth opportunities. One of the biggest reasons for brain drain in this country. In spite of all that distrust between castes continues to be a headache. After these reservations the hatred and jealousy is growing among forward caste youth who feel like their lives are being unfairly ripped apart thanks to what their ancestors did a few hundred years ago. But the acts of violence as you see in every day news is mainly between Kshatriyas/OBCs and Dalits. Till 2006 Dalits had the lion's share of reservation. After that OBCs have got even more reserved seats(mind you many OBCs are well to do, collectively richer than Brahmins in many states). So there is a lot of tension between these 2 groups, OBCs want to cut off Dalits from enjoying the benefits and new forward caste groups are rushing ahead to be declared OBC to gain reservation benefits.:giggle: Tamasha all round. These OBCs/Kshatriyas are also quite hot headed/violent/not averse to violence and frequent blood spilling of Dalits occurs on a daily basis everywhere. Brahmins are peaceful folk, very restrained and kind of cowards. Brahmins also have very good relations with Dalits. Mayawati the famous Dalit leader from uttar Pradesh banks on the Brahmin-Dalit votebank ,times have changed . But still inter caste marriages are a no no. In India Christians,Muslims,Sikhs,Buddhists,Jains all follow caste system in one form or the other. The caste distinction is based on their caste at the time that they or their ancestors converted. The strict caste system of Hinduism caused many Hindus of lower classes over the years to seek conversion to Christianity/Islam/others to escape the caste system Meanwhile few upper caste Hindus converted to Islam/Christianity and became part of the governing group of Sultanates/Mughal Empire or higher posts in the British Raj. Moreover many minority people declare themselves as SC/STs/OBCs just to avail reservation benefits(rampant among Christians in Andhra Pradesh). Regarding your question on number Hindu gods I will answer in another post, this post already is too long. Meanwhile I have a few questions of my own. Does the holy Koran/other holy Islamic scriptures mention anything about a system equivalent to the caste system? I have heard of bonded slaves in medieval Islam, doesn't that indicate some sort of caste grouping at some level? As you said about the situation in Pakistan no surprise really. we South Asians have no concept of dignity of labor. We look down upon sweepers,cleaners,laborers,etc and will never have matrimonial alliances with those people. Classless society is a Utopian dream, never will be a reality. I am convinced that in all 3rd world countries we have some sort of social divisions, this isn't entirely only India's problem, of course it's mention in Rig Veda/other scriptures makes it slightly tricky in our case. But as long as there is man there will be oppressors and oppressed.

[jalebi_bhai]

British politicized it - caste based fault lines were creation of our glorious ancestors even during the vedic eras. Lets STOP pointing fingers.

Listen, read what I've written in this thread carefully before typing non-sense. I have very clearly stated that if the caste system is still a persisting problem in India, it is clearly the fault of Indians. I'm not pointing fingers with regards to that. However, the caste system became politically and institutionally corrupt in a widespread manner under the British. This is a well documented fact by the British themselves. The entire forum is aware of your pathological hatred for your own culture, but don't let that cloud your computing of objective facts. Tell me, if the system was as historically rigid as you claim it to be, how was Buddha, a man born into a Kshatriya family, widely accepted as the spiritual head of a religious philosophy throughout the land and continent? Please, give me a factual answer, not rhetoric or sob stories. The vedas pre-date Buddhism, so tell me, how was this allowed in a rigid system? Asoka played a big role in the spread of Buddhism, but how did the so-called rigid Hindus accept Buddhism? You might also want to read a few pages from the book in the link I've provided. It is written by a man from the west, so that is one important criteria for you that has been met. Fair to say, people can change their identity at will, not their prejudices.

[jalebi_bhai]

Invasion glad to have this discussion, apologies for my below post, quite detailed(and long :winky:) and hopefully easy to understand in case you are interested. The caste system in Hinduism is as old as the religion itself. many right wing lunatics/RSS/BJP have the view that invaders(Muslims and then Christians) brought it upon us and they are responsible for caste divisions in India. Nothing is farther from the truth, caste system is a part and parcel of Hinduism(not entirely bad in concept but misused over the millenia) and many just don't want to accept it as such, they get very defensive when you raise this issue and don't want to discuss faults in their religion. Of course invaders used these divisions to their advantage and this helped them subjugate the massive Hindu population politically but caste divisions were a reality since ancient times.It is similar to 'jihad'-I don't know but I don't think it is mentioned in Koran to simply instigate violence against non believers, it has been misinterpreted and misused by bad people over the years to justify their acts of intolerance and violent actions. No real Prophet will ask his/her followers to take the path of mindless violence. Whatever is written in the holy Koran must be studied/analyzed w.r.t the prevailing situation/political climate/environment in the 6th century at the time the message was revealed. May be it was the need of the times to safeguard the religion/ideology from enemies(Correct me if I am wrong,you must know better). Even in Hinduism acts of violence by Gods/Goddesses are common, Lord Krishna gave the sermon(Bhagvad Gita) to Arjun to fight/kill/defeat the opponent Kauravas(in which Arjun's brothers,uncles,extended family) fought. Wars between Devas(supernatural beings) and Asuras(demons) with involvement of Gods/Goddesses is very common in our holy scriptures. But the message was always of good triumphing over evil and violence was justified. Similarly the caste system must be looked at w.r.t the time when it was revealed(Ancient times, around 1750 BC). In the ancient Rig Vedic period the people were divided into 4 main classes/'varnas'(in order of ranking with 1 being highest rank): 1. Brahmins('Knowledge'; Priests,Teachers,Liason between man and Gods) 2. Kshatriyas('Valor, knowledge of weapons, governance'; Royals,Nobles,Military) 3. Vaishyas(Agriculture and Cattle Rearing,Traders) 4. Shudras(Serve the other 3 castes) During that time the system of division was fair and flexible. Intelligent people were Brahmins; brave/fighters were Kshatriyas; skilful artisans/traders/cattle rearers/farmers were Vaishyas and those who didn't have any of the above talents were Shudras, eg laborers. Ancient Hindu texts suggest that the caste system was not rigid. There are examples of men born to families belonging to Vaishya/Shudra caste performing tapasya(nun like celibate lifestyle) and becoming maharishis(sages,Brahmin caste). This flexibility permitted the dacoit Valmiki who was a Shudra by birth to become a Maharshi and compose the Ramayana, which was widely adopted and became a major Hindu scripture. The Mahabharata declares that birth ancestry, sacraments or study alone cannot decide whether a person is a Brahmin; only character and behaviour can do so. Some Brahmans were also warriors. Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa, son of a Brahmin sage Parashara and a fisher woman Satyavathi, in his Mahabharata, describes several warriors belonging to Brahmin caste, such as Dronacharya, Ashwatthama, Kripacharya, Parashuram etc. Other ancient texts cite numerous examples of individuals moving from one caste to another within their lifetimes. So as you see it wasn't unreasonable and corrupt in it's initial stages. The varna(caste) system became rigid in the later Vedic period(around 500 BC). The main reason was that the people then started feeling that 'the son of a teacher will genetically be intelligent','son of a warrior will also be a braveheart' and so on and so forth. Of course genetics wasn't the hot topic of discussion those days but people believed that traits of parents are passed over to children. Also the children who spent their childhood with the parents were more likely to pick up the father's occupation/get trained by the father. Only Shudras were disadvantaged then because no Shudra wanted to follow his father as a labourer/servant/cremator of the dead but then, no choice. By then the other castes started looking down upon these people because according to them they were filthy/polluted/disgusting and hence they became social outcasts. So started the social evil that cast away one of the varnas to doom. Kshatriyas were kings, nobles,warriors etc,so they were always in a position of power and wealthy. But some of the Kshatriyas who didn't have the appetite for violence became traders, went to agriculture etc. Brahmins were the priests, teachers/advisors for kings and continued to be among the top of the chain. Kshatriyas and Brahmins always worked in tandem in keeping control of the province. Vaishyas branched out into many forms and were the backbone of the economy. By now the caste system was almost completely hereditary and remained so for the next 2000-2200 years. In this time period all castes had hundreds of sub castes, the entire branching out became more and more complicated and mistrust between various varnas/sub castes/ sub sub castes.... increased to a historic high point. This was an impediment in the unity of the provinces who easily fell prey to Muslim invaders. To illustrate the magnitude of subdivision let me show you a few of the prominent sub castes/ sub sub castes of the Brahmin varna: Brahmins Pancha Gauda Brahmin..(north of the Vindhya mountains) White portion:North of the Vindhyas. The Vindhyas are considered as the traditional boundary between North and South India. Saraswat Brahmins Saraswat Brahmin Kashmiri Pandits Goud Saraswat Brahmin Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin Rajapur Saraswat Brahmin Kudaldeshkar Gaud Brahman Kashyap Daivajna brahmin Kanyakubja Brahmins Gaur Brahmin Sanadya Brahmin Kamrupi Brahmins Kanyakubja Brahmin Saryupareen Brahmin Sakaldwipiya Brahmins Pareek Brahmins Saraswat Brahmin Pushkarna Brahmin Gauda Brahmins The Brahmins from historical region of Gauḍa(modern day Bengal and Bangladesh) are known as Gauda Brahmins. Pancha-Dravida Brahmin(South of the Vindhyas) Pancha-Dravida Brahmins are found in present day states of: Andhra Pradesh and Telangana- The Telugu Brahmins of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are broadly classified into four groups: Vaidiki Brahmins, Niyogi, Dravida Brahmins, and Vaikhānasa. Niyogis are further divided into the following subcategories: Nandavarika Niyogi, Prathama Shakha Niyogi, Aaru Vela Niyogulu, Karanaalu, Sistukaranalu, Karana kamma vyaparlu, Karanakammulu. Dravida (Tamil Nadu and Kerala)- Iyengar (Tamil Nadu, sub-divided into Vadakalai and Thenkalai) Iyer (Tamil Nadu, sub-divided further into Vadama, Vathima, Brahacharanam, Ashtasahasram, Sholiyar, Dikshitar, Kaniyalar, Prathamasaki) Nambudiri(Kerala) Pushpaka Brahmins(Kerala) Gujarat- Gujarati Brahmins consist of various sub-castes such as : Aboti Brahmins Modh Brahmins Nagar Brahmins Audichya Brahmin Bardai Brahmins Anavil Brahmin Nodera Brahmin Khedaval Brahmins Karnataka Hoysala Karnataka Brahmins Smartha Brahmins Halenadu Karnataka Brahmin Madhwa Brahmins Mysore Iyengars Kota Brahmins Tuluva Brahmins, which consist of Kandavara Brahmins, Karhade Brahmins, Padia Brahmins, Saklapuri Brahmins, Shivalli Brahmins, Smartha Shivalli Brahmins, Sthanika Brahmins, Padarthi Brahmins. Havyaka Brahmin Gowda Saraswat Brahmins Maharashtra Chitpavan Konkanastha Brahmin, Deshastha Brahmin and Karhade Brahmin There are other sects, what I have named above hardly comprises 50% of the Brahmin divisions. There are Brahmins based in Nepal,Burma,Thailand,Indonesia,Sri lanka, other South Indian domains. Similarly other castes have also branched out like crazy. can't write each one of them because then my post will be 10 pages long :haha:. So you see how divided our Hindu society was in the medieval period, those who blame Muslims/Christians for dividing our religion must look into themselves. I am a right wing Hindu who is a supporter of BJP/RSS. Take it from my mouth, Muslims have zero role in dividing our religion any further. Any body who blames Muslims(and there quite a few in this country) is simply a hater/conspiracy theorist with no rational claims/historical knowledge. Muslim invaders were mighty and powerful but they didn't have the tactical nous/foresight of the British who brought in the system of 'divide and rule' in modern day India. They divided Hindus and Muslims, one caste from another and ruled us idiots efficiently for 200 years with very few British personnel camped here.The caste system became legally rigid during the Raj,when the British started to enumerate castes during the ten-year census(1901-1911) and meticulously codified the system under their rule. In the round table conference held on August 1932, upon the request of Ambedkar, the then Prime Minister of Britain, Ramsay Macdonald made a Communal Award which awarded a provision for separate representation for the Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans and Dalits(origin from Shudras, they are the lowest sub caste among Shudras, also called as untouchables/Schedule Castes in present times). These depressed classes were assigned a number of seats to be filled by election from special constituencies in which voters belonging to the depressed classes only could vote. Gandhi went on a hunger strike against this provision claiming that such an arrangement would split the Hindu community into two groups. Years later, Ambedkar wrote that Gandhi's fast was a form of coercion.This agreement, which saw Gandhi end his fast and Ambedkar drop his demand for a separate electorate, was called the Poona Pact. Beyond this I have no knowledge of Britishers poking their noses in Hindu caste affairs. Modern times The Indian government officially recognizes historically discriminated communities of India such as the Untouchables under the designation of Scheduled Castes, and certain economically backward Shudra castes as Other Backward Castes.The Scheduled Castes are sometimes referred to as Dalits in contemporary literature. In 2001, the proportion of Dalit population was 16.2 percent of India's total population.According to the 2001 census it is estimated that Hindu Forward caste comprises 26%, Other Backward Class comprises 43%, Hindu Scheduled Castes (Dalits) comprises 22% and Hindu Scheduled Tribes comprises 9%. Article 15 of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination based on caste and Article 17 declared the practice of untouchability to be illegal. In 1955, India enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act (renamed in 1976, as the Protection of Civil Rights Act). It extended the reach of law, from intent to mandatory enforcement. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was passed in India in 1989. So today legally the lower castes have the full backing of the state. We have had Dalit Presidents,Chief Ministers,Chief Justices,Speakers,MPs,MLAs,entrepreneurs etc. Most government jobs/educational institutes have a very high % of seats reserved for OBCs,SC/STs. In fact the reservation in educational seats is so much that the forward castes are fed up of them. Very difficult for forward castes to get seats in IITs,IIMs,IISc etc because of very little seats and heavy competition. The lower castes have ridiculously low cut offs and dunces get into these prestigious institutes lowering the standards. In some states Brahmins(who ironically are the biggest minority in terms of % population @ <2%) have almost 0 representation in government offices and opportunities are quite limited. So most of the forward caste students especially Brahmins are forced to go overseas seeking better growth opportunities. One of the biggest reasons for brain drain in this country. In spite of all that distrust between castes continues to be a headache. After these reservations the hatred and jealousy is growing among forward caste youth who feel like their lives are being unfairly ripped apart thanks to what their ancestors did a few hundred years ago. But the acts of violence as you see in every day news is mainly between Kshatriyas/OBCs and Dalits. Till 2006 Dalits had the lion's share of reservation. After that OBCs have got even more reserved seats(mind you many OBCs are well to do, collectively richer than Brahmins in many states). So there is a lot of tension between these 2 groups, OBCs want to cut off Dalits from enjoying the benefits and new forward caste groups are rushing ahead to be declared OBC to gain reservation benefits.:giggle: Tamasha all round. These OBCs/Kshatriyas are also quite hot headed/violent/not averse to violence and frequent blood spilling of Dalits occurs on a daily basis everywhere. Brahmins are peaceful folk, very restrained and kind of cowards. Brahmins also have very good relations with Dalits. Mayawati the famous Dalit leader from uttar Pradesh banks on the Brahmin-Dalit votebank ,times have changed . But still inter caste marriages are a no no. In India Christians,Muslims,Sikhs,Buddhists,Jains all follow caste system in one form or the other. The caste distinction is based on their caste at the time that they or their ancestors converted. The strict caste system of Hinduism caused many Hindus of lower classes over the years to seek conversion to Christianity/Islam/others to escape the caste system Meanwhile few upper caste Hindus converted to Islam/Christianity and became part of the governing group of Sultanates/Mughal Empire or higher posts in the British Raj. Moreover many minority people declare themselves as SC/STs/OBCs just to avail reservation benefits(rampant among Christians in Andhra Pradesh). Regarding your question on number Hindu gods I will answer in another post, this post already is too long. Meanwhile I have a few questions of my own. Does the holy Koran/other holy Islamic scriptures mention anything about a system equivalent to the caste system? I have heard of bonded slaves in medieval Islam, doesn't that indicate some sort of caste grouping at some level? As you said about the situation in Pakistan no surprise really. we South Asians have no concept of dignity of labor. We look down upon sweepers,cleaners,laborers,etc and will never have matrimonial alliances with those people. Classless society is a Utopian dream, never will be a reality. I am convinced that in all 3rd world countries we have some sort of social divisions, this isn't entirely only India's problem, of course it's mention in Rig Veda/other scriptures makes it slightly tricky in our case. But as long as there is man there will be oppressors and oppressed.

Gollum same question to you as DM, how was Buddha, a man born into a Kshatriya family, widely accepted as the spiritual head of a religious philosophy in caste divided India? How did the Hindus accept the writings of Valmiki, a man born into a low caste who then later became a sage? People still studied the Ramayana after 500 BC, yes? Wouldn't the bigots have rejected his teachings if they wete as dogmatic as you claim? See, I'm not saying that the system had no historic issues, but don't you think that when the Muslims came and said you either convert, or die or pay jizya, that it would've messed up the social structure? The vaishyas and kshatriyas could've afforded to pay jizya, but what about the brahmins and shudras? They were not the wealthy caste. You don't think this could've corrupted the structure?

[Gollum]

Gollum same question to you as DM, how was Buddha, a man born into a Kshatriya family, widely accepted as the spiritual head of a religious philosophy in caste divided India? How did the Hindus accept the writings of Valmiki, a man born into a low caste who then later became a sage? People still studied the Ramayana after 500 BC, yes? Wouldn't the bigots have rejected his teachings if they wete as dogmatic as you claim? See, I'm not saying that the system had no historic issues, but don't you think that when the Muslims came and said you either convert, or die or pay jizya, that it would've messed up the social structure? The vaishyas and kshatriyas could've afforded to pay jizya, but what about the brahmins and shudras? They were not the wealthy caste. You don't think this could've corrupted the structure?

Did you read my complete post? I mentioned in my long post the caste system as conceived by Ancient Indians was fair,flexible,logical and had no malicious intent. Also I mentioned our holy scriptures declared that birth ancestry, sacraments or study alone cannot decide whether a person is a Brahmin or Kshatriya, only character and behaviour can do so. I also gave many examples of men who transcended their caste by virtue of their character/actions eg Valmiki. Buddha was born in the later Vedic period, when our society was naive and biases hadn't crept in, it was the start of deepening of our caste divide. And people followed him because of entirely different reasons .1. At that time in history there were too many rituals and the role of priests was huge in Hinduism. People were naturally fed up. 2. Anyone can enter Nirvana, no matter how lowly, whereas in Vedic Hinduism only the Brahmins could achieve that. 3. Not too many Gods in Buddhism unlike Hinduism, in fact in strict terms even Buddha shouldn't be worshiped as a God. 4. As the "middle way" Buddha rejected extreme asceticism as well as great wealth. The ideal in Hinduism unfortunately was extreme asceticism. People who followed Buddha were simply influenced greatly by his teachings and his methods that time were revolutionary. Hinduism had it's share of faults(mainly because of the 'varna' system) with Brahmins holding too much power and highly ritualistic society also. Also concepts like the 'middle path' were pretty eye catching and tempting for the masses. From around 500 BC to British Rule the divisions kept growing deeper because of the reasons I mentioned in my post. It wasn't 50 year thing, the rot took place across >2000 years. And it was a social evil. Once again I repeat CASTE SYSTEM IS A SOCIAL EVIL, but thanks to it's repeated mentions in our scriptures it is very difficult to convince people otherwise. It's mention in Hindu holy books just like 'jihad' in koran means the thing will never completely die out, people can always look back and in thei twisted way justify the necessity of the 'varnas'. You talk about Muslims and the jizya thing? But why were Brahmins and Shudras not the wealthy class that time? Caste system was very much present at that time from your sentence? Can't blame Muslims when we ourselves had fragmented and allowed these 2 castes to not develop economically. Where does the corruption of the structure arise? If i were a Shudra in the 1700s with my previous 20 generations also being shudras and myself and my family being outcastes from the Hindu society for eternity. If one fine day Aurangzeb's soldier came and asked for jizya with a sword in his hand I would have happily converted then and there with my family. Who is responsible then? Aurangzeb's policy or the religion which deprived 20 generations of my family from pursuing their ambitions and forever confining them to the role of manual scavenging.

[Crookbond]

Listen' date= read what I've written in this thread carefully before typing non-sense. I have very clearly stated that if the caste system is still a persisting problem in India, it is clearly the fault of Indians. I'm not pointing fingers with regards to that. However, the caste system became politically and institutionally corrupt in a widespread manner under the British. This is a well documented fact by the British themselves. The entire forum is aware of your pathological hatred for your own culture, but don't let that cloud your computing of objective facts. Tell me, if the system was as historically rigid as you claim it to be, how was Buddha, a man born into a Kshatriya family, widely accepted as the spiritual head of a religious philosophy throughout the land and continent? Please, give me a factual answer, not rhetoric or sob stories. The vedas pre-date Buddhism, so tell me, how was this allowed in a rigid system? Asoka played a big role in the spread of Buddhism, but how did the so-called rigid Hindus accept Buddhism? You might also want to read a few pages from the book in the link I've provided. It is written by a man from the west, so that is one important criteria for you that has been met. Fair to say, people can change their identity at will, not their prejudices.

This is the reason you aren't worth having a conversation with. At some point on this thread, you were asking others to have a civil conversation. Look at the tone of your reply? Even 12-year olds have more maturity. Thanks for reminding me to not indulge in your juvenile, petulant and imbecile attitude. But, here I will bite for the last time - The entire forum is aware of your pathological hatred for your own culture, but don't let that cloud your computing of objective facts. Yeah, just because I try to break the regular circle jerk - I become a pathological hatred for our own culture. If I agree with you, I become a nationalist Padma Shri award winner. Tell me, if the system was as historically rigid as you claim it to be, how was Buddha, a man born into a Kshatriya family, widely accepted as the spiritual head of a religious philosophy throughout the land and continent? I never made this claim, you idiot. I said that the caste system having fault lines predate the British and evil Muslim invaders. You OTOH, think that the caste system was fine until the evil Islamic rulers came to India and popularized the samosa. Remove your khakhi eyed glasses and learn to appreciate alternate PoV rather than indulging in ad hominem. It is written by a man from the west, so that is one important criteria for you that has been met. Ghonchu, listen - it does NOT matter who writes it. The logical construction of arguments is what matters - a westerner can be an appam ch**** like our YS Rao or he can be good. Just because he is from the west, doesn't make his arguments true or vice versa.

[Gollum]

@Invasion to your question about Hindu Gods/Goddesses. I will answer in 2 parts, One what majority Hindus believe and another what my father taught me when I was young. Hinduism is very abstract, I have understood very little of it in my life, still will try to explain to you the best I can. For example even many Hindu priests have been given God like status, pretty sure most Muslims don't worship the Sufi saints as equivalent to God !!! General view: You will hear many Hindus claiming that there are 33 crore Hindu deities. It comprises three major traditions(I mean most popular), Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Shaktism whose followers consider Shiva, Vishnu and Shakti (also called as Devi, the female form) to be the supreme deity respectively. Most of the other deities were either related to them or different forms ('incarnations', now this is a repeated concept in dharmic religions which folks in Abrahmic religions don't come across at all ) of these deities. A recent addition to the above 3 is The Smarta Tradition which is an orthodox Hindu "family tradition" or sect composed of Brahmins. The term Smarta is used to denote a specific, specialized category of Brahmins, who specialize in the smriti(Hindu religious scripture) who hold the smriti as the most authoritative text. Generally Smartas worship the Supreme in one of five forms: Ganesha(Elephant headed God you may have seen), Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu, and Surya(Sun God). Because they accept all the major Hindu Gods, they are considered as liberal or nonsectarian. Vaishnavites, many of whom I know won't even step into Shiva/Ganesha & Karthik(sons of Shiva)/Parvati(wife of Shiva) temples !!! Para Bramh 'Supreme Cosmic Spirit' : which encompasses the transcendent and ultimate reality, the absolute truth. Terms like Parameshvara, Ishvara, Bhagavan, Bramh, and Paramatma are held to be synonymous with Para Brahman. It is analogous to what Muslims call 'Allah' Trimurti and Tridevi Brahma:Creator Vishnu: Preserver/Protector Shiva: Destroyer/Judge Vishnu and Shiva are much more popular than Brahma(who was cursed once and has only 1 separate temple in his honor, Pushkar in Rajasthan...won't get into that story) The Tridevi or triplet goddesses of Hinduism have equal importance as the Trimurti and function as their consorts. Brahma is creator, so he needs knowledge or goddess Saraswati to create. Vishnu is preserver, so he needs the goddess of wealth and prosperity, goddess Lakshmi. Finally, Shiva is destroyer and re-creator, so he needs goddess Parvati/ Durga/Kali for power. They are the various manifestations of Goddess, Shakti. Other popular Gods Ganesh & Karthik: sons of Shiva and Parvati Ram & Krishna: incarnations of Vishnu Jaganath(in Orissa, considered a form of Vishnu) Vithoba(in Southern and western India, form of Vishnu) Balaji(in Andhra Pradesh and Southern India,form of Vishnu) In fact there are 10 avatars of Vishnu, some of them being Krishna,Ram,Parashuram,Narasimha and even Buddha !!!!! Yes we also worship Buddha, it is a common Hindu name as is Siddhartha(name of Buddha before his enlightenment). Even Rahul which is a very common name is after Buddha's son who was named Rahula. Buddhism and Hinduism have many things in common, after all Buddha himself was a Hindu. Many Sri Lankan names like Arjuna,Muttiah,Mahela,Kumara, Gurusinha, Suriya,Suraj etc are household Hindu names. ther are many other Gods all having central importance in our religion but can't cover everyone. Hanuman as you asked is an avatar of Shiva, messenger of Lord Ram and son of vayu(wind God). He symbolizes wisdom and power. All gyms/bodybuilding centres in India will have his photo hanging in front. We also have minor Gods like Ashvins, Vasus,Adityas, etc. As far as polytheists in Hinduism are concerned they cover every aspect of nature in their classification. Sun God,Moon God, Mountain God, River God,Earth God, star God,Ocean God,God of Death etc etc. All the Gods i was talking about earlier they are aspects of the same universal supreme God. The polytheists see the various deities as independently existing entities To see the full list check these links if you are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindu_deities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities Rig Veda says we have 33 Gods, 33 crores is more like pointing to infinite number of Gods. My view: I have never been to a temple for a few years now. I don't do idol worship or prayers, only meditation and Yoga everyday and that gives me peace. Hinduism is just a way of life for me that preaches non violence and tolerance. What I have been taught by my elders is that God is one and is formless and above all. Many think that he is like Fire (Agni), Air (Vayu), creator (Vishnu), Shakti (Goddess) ,Knowledge (Saraswati), etc and that makes them think that they are different from each other. I have no problem with those people, after all Hinduism is very abstract and tolerant in these matters, you are free to worship God in any form you please. The only thing that matters is to be a good human being and help the needy and oppressed whenever you get the chance. The only parallel I see to Hindu Gods is Greek Gods but they are only slightly similar.

[Gollum]

About the Iyer vs Iyengar thing, I will tell what my Tamil friends in college told me. Iyers and Iyengars get along just fine but expect a lot of banter :P. Iyengars look down upon Iyers because Vishnu(deity of Iyengars) lives a luxurious, opulent lifestyle enjoying all the time whereas Shiva(deity of Iyers) lives a very ascetic life abstaining from luxuries etc. Iyengars I guess must be more the show off types especially when it comes to celebration of Vishnu whereas Iyers keep their worship plain and simple. Also Iyers frequent Vishnu temples unlike Iyengars who don't respect Shiva all that much :haha: and claim to be more open minded. I don't know about all that( found all Tamil Brahmin friends a bit stingy TBH) for a fact can tell that Iyers are OK naming their children after Vishnu but Iyengars won't do that.

[riya]

This is a real shame..But i am not surprised..the biggest racist country on planet earth,cast superiority,fair complexion superiority.

[jalebi_bhai]

Did you read my complete post? I mentioned in my long post the caste system as conceived by Ancient Indians was fair,flexible,logical and had no malicious intent. Also I mentioned our holy scriptures declared that birth ancestry, sacraments or study alone cannot decide whether a person is a Brahmin or Kshatriya, only character and behaviour can do so. I also gave many examples of men who transcended their caste by virtue of their character/actions eg Valmiki. Buddha was born in the later Vedic period, when our society was naive and biases hadn't crept in, it was the start of deepening of our caste divide. And people followed him because of entirely different reasons .1. At that time in history there were too many rituals and the role of priests was huge in Hinduism. People were naturally fed up. 2. Anyone can enter Nirvana, no matter how lowly, whereas in Vedic Hinduism only the Brahmins could achieve that. 3. Not too many Gods in Buddhism unlike Hinduism, in fact in strict terms even Buddha shouldn't be worshiped as a God. 4. As the "middle way" Buddha rejected extreme asceticism as well as great wealth. The ideal in Hinduism unfortunately was extreme asceticism. People who followed Buddha were simply influenced greatly by his teachings and his methods that time were revolutionary. Hinduism had it's share of faults(mainly because of the 'varna' system) with Brahmins holding too much power and highly ritualistic society also. Also concepts like the 'middle path' were pretty eye catching and tempting for the masses. From around 500 BC to British Rule the divisions kept growing deeper because of the reasons I mentioned in my post. It wasn't 50 year thing, the rot took place across >2000 years. And it was a social evil. Once again I repeat CASTE SYSTEM IS A SOCIAL EVIL, but thanks to it's repeated mentions in our scriptures it is very difficult to convince people otherwise. It's mention in Hindu holy books just like 'jihad' in koran means the thing will never completely die out, people can always look back and in thei twisted way justify the necessity of the 'varnas'.

Please point out where I've said that the caste system was perfect. Please, go ahead. I've repeatedly said that it had its faults. I'm not even advocating it. It is in decline and for good measure as it is archaic. It is losing relevance and I'm happy about it. We are both in agreement on two things, one, it started with the noble intention to ensure division of labour in society and two, even before the invaders came it had its serious problems. I do however wish to point out that it was definitely a flexible system, at least at one point in time. Another thing I would like to point is that the word dalit doesn't feature in any of the Hindu scriptures. Not one. Let me make my point clear, the caste system had its problems and when the invaders came, both Muslim and European, these problems compounded even further. This is historical fact. Would the system have been rectified had the invasions not happened, we don't know, why? Because the invasions did happen.

You talk about Muslims and the jizya thing? But why were Brahmins and Shudras not the wealthy class that time?

The whole idea was to ensure that the core essential tasks of Indian society were divided among people. Those in charge of policy making and intellectual thought (Brahmin) were to not be allowed to accumulate massive wealth. If the policy makers would've been allowed to accumulate massive wealth, don't you think they would've done everything within their power to ensure that the wealth would've been concentrated amongst them? You don't think that that sort of absolute power would've absolutely corrupted them? Absolute corruption is what the system wanted to prevent. Division of labour is a concept which is still very much in use in the contemporary world, particularly in the corporate world. It is sad that our ancestors turned the caste system to what it became pre-invasion, but the concept of division of labour is still very much in vogue.

Caste system was very much present at that time from your sentence? Can't blame Muslims when we ourselves had fragmented and allowed these 2 castes to not develop economically.

Arrey haan, it was there, I've never denied it. It had its faults but the core philosophy, division of labour based on skill, is very relevant. If it wasn't, we wouldn't see division of labour in modern society. Again, we don't know if our ancestors would've remedied it or not, because the invasions happened and compounded our social problems. So to assume that they would've carried on with it is just that, an assumption.

Where does the corruption of the structure arise? If i were a Shudra in the 1700s with my previous 20 generations also being shudras and myself and my family being outcastes from the Hindu society for eternity. If one fine day Aurangzeb's soldier came and asked for jizya with a sword in his hand I would have happily converted then and there with my family. Who is responsible then? Aurangzeb's policy or the religion which deprived 20 generations of my family from pursuing their ambitions and forever confining them to the role of manual scavenging.

Take your time and read the content in the below links: http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/irin/genocide.html http://www.islam-watch.org/books/islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery.pdf I have very intentionally avoided links from websites such as hindu.org or savehinduism.com. Link one is content written by a well reputed Western Indologist. The second link is a book written by a Muslim. Page 59 onwards. So take your time, read the content, and comeback and convince me that Muslim invaders didn't have a role in destroying our social structure. These are my sources.

[jalebi_bhai]

Let it go on record that I didn't resort to name-calling. I got somewhat personal, but now I'm going to reciprocate the name calling.

This is the reason you aren't worth having a conversation with. At some point on this thread' date=' you were asking others to have a civil conversation.[/quote'] I was specifically asking amiret to be civilized. I don't bother with a quint-essential Macaulay-putra like yourself. Barring yourself and the agenda driven amiret, I've given others civilized replies, with links to sources to my info. The reason I don't bother with you is because you are so far up your own ass and have such an inflated opinion of yourself that it is honestly laughable. I'm well aware of your conceited train of thought. While debating with someone with a view contrary to your own, you expect the other person to provide SC level evidence to back their arguments while not holding yourself to the same standards. I very distinctly remember reading your discussion with Texan regarding a court decision against Somnath Bharati. Texan provided you with links from multiple media sources, with accurate interpretations of the court verdict. You kept dismissing his links, demanding that he post info from some website of your liking. I decided to try and find what you were looking for and was successful. As it turned out, it was more or less the same info as Texan provided. You harassed him to ultimately have egg on your own face. This is the way you debate with others and I frankly couldn't care to indulge with a toss-pot like yourself. Funny that someone who lacks the maturity of a 12-year old was essentially able to get you to stop posting in the politics section. You used to be a frequent poster in that section when I joined the forum, not the case anymore. What was your pathetic alibi? 'Debates are no longer civilized' when in reality all I did was reciprocate the same type of haranguing that you would subject others to while debating. You simply couldn't take the treatment. Not my problem. And btw, on record again, it was you who indulged me, under this Ras Al Ghul non-sense, after our black money squabble, not me. And how did you do it? Passing off a remark that you haven't seen me make posts lengthier than my signature. I didn't realize at first, but when I checked the Ian Pont AMA thread (good initiative from you in all honestly) and realized that it was you, I simply laughed at how pathetic you truly are. I indulged you only once after that, and again it was because you were beating around the bush on an issue, a habit of yours when you are truly bereft of a sensible argument. If you don't want to ever have a discussion with me in the future, just say so. And give a heads up when you change your profile name to whatever so that I don't approach you even by accident. I have absolute no interest in interacting with you. You are insignificant to me and my life. You're words not mine. You have, on occasion, resorted to taking unprovoked potshots at Hinduism. Your views on the right wing are well known to those who frequent the politics section and when you did post frequently in the politics section, the articles you posted were of a well known nature. Your obsession with Modi was downright scary. Now you can post whatever the hell you want, within the rules of the forum, but don't put up this facade of being a balanced poster, something you are very clearly not. Wow, not only are you a blithering idiot, but you are also a blatant liar. Read post #30. Is that what I've said? Why am I even surprised about you lying. Ab asli rang dikhane lagey na? :hysterical: I guess my post essentially Surpanakha'd you. And I do appreciate alternate POV, just not from blatantly biased people like you. Ok. Practice what you preach then Surpanakha. You know, there was a time when I had respect for you as a poster. We always had a difference of opinion, but you would often open good threads in the chit chat section. But the more our interactions increased, they more apparent your duplicity and gutter-class mentality became. Try to fool people as much as you want, eventually people will see through your mask. Anyways, starting Monday, I'm not going to be active on ICF for a good couple of months due to work related commitments. You can resume your durbar of wannabe intellectualism without worrying about me ever bothering you again.

[jalebi_bhai]

Btw, apologies to everyone for polluting this thread with our squabble. But some things just had to be said.