lpetrich

From this site's Newswire, what might be called Hindu fundamentalism in India: <a href="http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3A4GOQQ0D&live=t rue&tagid=ZZZFXM1ZXZB" target="_blank">The Saffron Revolution</a>

So Christian fundies, Jewish fundies, and Muslim fundies may be joined by Hindu fundies.

Consider what has happened to a certain Professor Jha for suggesting that early Hindus had sacrificed cows and eaten beef -- he has received death threats and his book on this subject has been banned.

And consider how some Hindu nationalists have made claims like

"The earliest cities were in India. Mathematics was invented in India, astronomy was first developed in India. India gave civilisation to the world. We teach our pupils to be proud of this heritage, not to despise it."

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

roshan

that article is filled with krap.

lpetrich

What don't you like about it?

roshan

first of all, it quotes well known historian(or should i say marxist propagandist) romila thapar, the same person who gave us things like "aurangzeb didnt kill many hindus"(although every historical record from the period, even those of his own courtiers show that he conducted widespread massacres of both hindus and sikhs).

then, it talks about the demolishment of the mosque by "militants"(although they werent armed)and the death of 3000 people - but it doesnt mention the fact that the demolishment was absolutely bloodless, it was the muslim reaction to it that was filled with blood.

then it talks about hindu "militants" rioting - unfortunately, objective sources like bbc claim that both hindus and muslims were rioting on the streets. then they claim that the people who died on the train were militants - even though they were just innocent polgrims, mostly women and children.

then it claims that the shudra caste are untouchables(even though untouchables were actually people who are not part of the caste system)

it rubishes claims that aryans never invaded india without providing any evidence that they didnt.

the article is little more than a bunch of ridiculous statements and propaganda.

hinduwoman

That attack on Jha was silly, because Hindus did eat beef well into the middle ages.

However as for the rest of it:
Thapar I am afriad is a highly rated historian only in the perspective of her circle. She is determined to make everything fit into her marxist and liberal ideology, including muslim rulers were really secular.

Then about the saffronised textbooks, we have never got a glimpse of what is there. so how can we judge?
This Sumit Sarkar says, "The revised curriculum deletes anything that is considered offensive to Hindu or other religious sensibility; In the process, any sense of teaching objective history is abandoned." In that case, why does he not start with Communist ruled West Bengal? The 1989 educational circular plainly states that all offensive references to muslim intolerance in India --- destroying temples and idols etc. --- will be deleted and it is. But apparently that is objective history. When history books with opposing views were written, the writers received a great deal of namecallings, and attempts to stop publising from the so called liberals.

As for historians complaining of lack of funds, I can provide detailed listings of what exactly these historians did with the funds they were given --- or rahter did not do.

Non-sequiter: This thing about tolerance really bugs me out. When these same professional secualrists are attacking hinduism it is how intolerant hinduism is in its castesystem and treatment of women. But suddenly, deprived of influence, they are moaning how the tolerance of hinduism is being destroyed. And of course, the question of islamic tolerance never comes in. Why dod they think Rss gained so much power anyway?

roshan

another problem with the article is the authors delusion that hinduism doesnt have an orthodoxy... however, all hindu groups have to believe in the authority of the vedas, karma, reincarnation, god, moksha and the soul. the diff sects have diff philosophies on about god, the universe and the soul, and they have diff ways of worshipping, but all these are based on the vedas, therefore, all of them are fully valid according to hinduism.

Susheel

There are large groups in South India which have been assimilated into Hinduism who do not have any of the characteristics you speak of Roshan. Many of us Hindus in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh still eat beef. You are touting the Hindutva ideology where the perfect Hindu is male and upper class (preferably Brahmin) (see how all organised religions think alike).
The propaganda about Romila Thapar being a Marxist propagandist is Saffron Propaganda. Romila Thapar is a respected historian (I should know, I have attended som of her lectures) who bases her theories on available evidence. Aurangzeb killed Hindus, he also killed muslims...purely political reasons. Some of the major officials in his government were Hindu.

phaedrus

I guess the question to be answered is - "Who is a Hindu in today's world?"

Edited to add...

Has romila given a rebuttal to Arun Shourie's book - "EMINENT HISTORIANS: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud" ???

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: phaedrus ]</p>

roshan

south indians have always been hindu - and many of hinduisms greatest saints have come from south india.

i never said that not eating beef was an essential characteristic of being a hindu - diets vary greatly depending on which part of india you are in. even during vedic times, beef was eaten. beef only became a taboo in the north much later on.

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: roshan ]</p>

Hindu Humanist

Susheel says: Many of us Hindus in Kerala, Tamil
Nadu and Andhra Pradesh still eat
beef.

I think this statement is factually wrong. There are certain population groups which do eat beef.
This is as much true of South India as it is of North India. That these groups can exist with no big persecution (certainly there should have been quarrels)But not all South Indian Hindus eat beef. In fact, te very idea of a Northern cow belt is a colonial construct. Chola dynasty the most powerful of the South Indian clans prided themselves to have killed the crown prince because he accidentally killed a calf. To this day the symbol of justice in South India - Tamil Nadu is a cow ringing a bell symbolising quest for justice. Jain litreature show that both Brahmins and Jains competed with each other to show more protection for cow. Saivite hymns by Nayanmars talk about the sacredness of cows. In Tamil Nadu the second day of Makara Sankranthi is a special day of reverence to the cattle in which cow is venerated in every house hold, particlarly those of Shudras (peasents).
What Jha did was that he purposefully twisted meaning. In a genetic engineering exercise that would have put Lysenko to shame he changed in his translations buffaloes to bulls and bulls to cows. In ramayan Sita says she would offer cows to the river. Jha tranlates (actually interprets) this to mean sacrifice. Anyone grown in Indian milieu knew that offering to a deity actually means giving the cows in charity not killing them.
So when Sanskrit scholars wanted an open discussion with Jha he shied away. Though he wants to act Salman Rushdie Hinduthva 'activists' have not obliged him. Marxist historians often indulge in hlaf truths and distortions. It is unfortunate that some in the West without knowing any better and taken in by the word secularism' think that these Stalinists have a cause.
-S.Aravindan Neelkandan (formerly Hindoo Heathen)