September 2010
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Aug
	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Archive for the Hindus & Hinduism Category

How Christian Evangelists Target Hindu American Students

13. August 2010 by admin.

How Christian Evangelists Target Hindu American Students By Francis C. Assisi

Source Link:

http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=051706093445

In a fictional account of a freshman year at an American State University, author Chris Sherman tells us of an Indian-American student from the Midwest, who is “born again” after a year of intensive prayer and prodding by his evangelical Christian roommates.

Born in India and raised in the United States, the protagonist Hari Singh is caught between the Hindu-Indian culture of his immigrant parents and his desire to “be rid of his Indian roots.”

An avowed agnostic when he arrives at the State University, by the end of his freshman year Harry “Bob” Singh’s newfound Christian faith presents him with a final challenge: facing his parents. “What to say? He knew he had to somehow begin to see them as his parents, to “honor” them, to show this in a way they with their Hindu heritage would recognize. How was he to do this? He didn’t know.”

One recalls a parallel in the real-life situation of Indian-American congressman Bobby Jindal who converted to Christianity during his second year at Brown University. At the time, Jindal wrote: “It was hard for me to struggle with the competing commandments ‘Honor thy parents,’ which includes showing respect through honesty, and ‘Love God with your whole mind and heart’.”

Anyway, it should come as no surprise that the earlier fictional account includes an Indian American character in the plot, because, since the 1990s, Asian American students have become central players in American evangelical Christianity - one of the fastest growing religous/social movements in the United States.

Whereas the characterization of Hari - hard working, philosophically tenacious, and troubled by his Indianness - hints at larger issues about South Asian American identity in the context of evangelical Christianity, there is increasing evidence that Christian evangelical groups are aggressively targeting Hindu students in American college campuses for conversion.

In fact, a sampling of Asian American-identified evangelical fellowship websites reveals mission statements targeting Asian and Asian American students for outreach and membership, while simultaneously affirming a non-race-specific evangelical identity.

There is evidence that large numbers of Asian American college students are turning to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through the encouragement and support of national and local prayer and Bible study organizations. Alongside the large national organizations, there are numerous local bible studies and fellowships that are often sponsored by local churches and are ethnic specific.

In response to an increasingly diverse college population, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF), for example, developed a series of “ABC” (Asian, Black, and Chicanos) conferences beginning in 1976 and experienced a membership boom in the 1980s and 1990s producing a significant number of Asian American IVCF student leaders.

One reason for the present renewed aggressive effort is that, unlike other Asian Americans, Hindu-Americans have staunchly resisted efforts at conversion. Also, unlike other Asian Americans who are becoming increasingly associated with evangelical Christianity on college campuses, Hindu-Americans have their own campus groups such as Hindu Students Federation.

Nevertheless, evangelical “parachurch” organizations like Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC), The Navigators, and IVCF are soliciting large numbers of students to their weekly bible studies, prayer meetings, and social events. There is no doubt that Asian Americans – especially Korean and Chinese - are becoming increasingly associated with evangelical Christianity on the college campus. The hope is that Indian-Americans will follow suit.

ORGANIZATIONS TARGETING DESIS

The main concern of the recently established Fellowship of South Asian Christians (organised at the Overseas Indians Congress on Evangelism) is the evangelization of South Asians living abroad. The organization acknowledges that it is gearing to become a dynamic force for evangelism among Hindus, scattered in countries other than their homeland.

The Institute of Hindu Studies, based in the Midwest, says its mission is to be “a resource base, strategy center and a facilitator of knowledge” by providing “reliable information on India, Hinduism and the Indian Diaspora.” The IHS says its vision is “To stimulate and encourage the growth of a culturally relevant movement for frontier missions among the 2,700 unreached, predominantly caste Hindu people groups existing mostly in India, but found throughout the world.”

Bhanu Christudas, a student at William Carey International University on the campus of the U.S. Center for World Mission, writes: “I believe it is high time for us to concentrate our efforts on reaching the dear Hindu men and women around the world before this form of Satan’s deception begins to devour millions more into its philosophy.” He asks fellow Christians: What is your part in reaching the Hindus for Christ?

In ‘Reaching The Hindu World’, Christudas observes, “since Hinduism “converted” into a missionary religion during the last century, it is growing more than ever before around the world.”

A recent report received by Henrietta Watson, head of the Institute of Hindu Studies at the U.S. Center for World Mission, states: “The Indo- American Society in Chicago overtly stated their goal is to have a Hindu temple and a training center in every American city with a population over 500,000 …They are on target with imported idols and priests from India.” Should we wait to hear more such reports before we begin to act, asks Christudas.

Another research report contains specific tips based on the field experiences of a senior evangelist, including detailed “do’s and don’ts” :

“Do not criticize or condemn Hinduism. …. Criticizing Hinduism can make us feel we have won an argument; it will not win Hindus to Jesus Christ…Never allow a suggestion that separation from family and/or culture is necessary in becoming a disciple of Christ. …Avoid all that even hints at triumphalism and pride. …Do not speak quickly on hell, or on the fact that Jesus is the only way for salvation. …Never hurry. Any pushing for a decision or conversion will do great harm. …. Even after a profession of Christ is made, do not force quick changes regarding pictures of gods, charms, etc. …Do not force Christian ideas into passages of Hindu scripture. … Empathize with Hindus. …. Learn to think as the Hindu thinks, and feel as he feels…. Those who move seriously into Christian work among Hindus need to become more knowledgeable in Hinduism than Hindus themselves are…A new believer should be warned against making an abrupt announcement to his or her family, since that inflicts great pain and inevitably produces deep misunderstanding….”

Indian Christian evangelist Rajendra Pillai of Clarksburg, Md., gives the following advice in the Baptist Press of August 15, 2003: ‘Learn to think as the Hindu thinks, and feel as he feels’. Based in Clarksburg, Md., he is the author of a new book, “Reaching the World in Our Own Backyard.”

Pillai explains: “We are slowly realizing that our neighborhoods, communities and workplaces are changing. We’re waking up to the fact that we now have new kinds of neighbors — they look different, they speak a different language, they eat different kinds of food and speak with a foreign accent. We know they aren’t Christians, because they worship other gods.

“North America has always been a land of immigrants, but now we have a new wave of people coming from countries in Asia, Africa and the Middle East adding to the growing religious diversity in North America. We don’t have to go overseas to meet someone from another culture. Each one of us can now be a missionary in our own communities.

“Between 1990 and 2000, Hinduism has emerged as one of the fastest-growing religions in America. The number of Asian-Indians, most of whom are Hindu, has doubled every 10 years since 1980 to reach a record 1.7 million in 2000. USA Today reported that there are currently 1.3 million Hindus in the United States. The Pluralism Project of Harvard University (www.pluralism.org) lists more than 700 Hindu temples in the United States, many built in the last 10 years. Many more are in the construction stage.”

Pillai observes, “We can effectively reach Asian-Indians by knowing a little about their culture, beliefs and practices. First and foremost, we need to learn as much as possible about Hinduism.”

And he offers the following pointers:

“The Indian culture is highly collectivist. This means that most Indians will consider their acceptance of the Gospel in light of how it will impact their families and friends. There is also a strong possibility of being rejected by family members if a person changes his or her religion. Chances are you will not get an immediate response. Be prepared to walk with and support your Indian friend if he or she wrestles spiritually.

“As Indians come from a collectivist society and yearn for community, many will be open to coming to church if it means being a part of a community where people are genuinely concerned about each other. You might start by inviting them to less-threatening events outside of a Sunday church service.

“Most Asian-Indians yearn for community. Coming from a collectivist society, they have a tough time adjusting to the American individualistic culture. This is where Christians can step in, and the church can become the community they are seeking.”

Pillai warns: “One thing that turns off many Asian-Indians is when Christians in this country just share the Gospel but are not interested in them in any other way. So if they say “no” to the Gospel, the same Christian friends and acquaintances disappear from their lives. Christian Asian-Indians who used to be Hindus say the most convincing argument for following Christ came through the love Christians showed toward them.”

Finally, asks Pillai: “If His heart beats for people from every nation and if Jesus died for all nations, then how can we keep the great news of the Gospel to ourselves, especially now that they live next door?”

In Mission Frontier’s article ‘personal evangelism among educated Hindus’, H.L. Richards writes: ‘Friendship evangelism is usually easy to initiate with Hindus. Most Hindus esteem religion in general and are free and open to speak about it. A sincere, nonjudgemental interest in all aspects of Indian Life will provide a good basis for friendship. Personal interaction with Hindus will lead to a more certain grasp of the essence of Hinduism than reading many books. A consistently Christ-like life is the most important factor in sharing the gospel with Hindus. The suggestions that follow should help to break down misunderstandings, of which there are far too many, and help to build a positive witness for Christ. Yet learning and applying these points can never substitute for a transparent life of peace and joy in discipleship to Jesus Christ.’

He advises: 1. Do not criticize or condemn Hinduism. There is much that is good and much that is bad in the practice of both Christianity and Hinduism. Pointing out the worst aspects of Hinduism is hardly the way to win friends or show love. It is to the credit of Hindus that they rarely retaliate against Christians by pointing out all our shameful practices and failures. Criticizing Hinduism can make us feel we have won an argument; it will not win Hindus to Jesus Christ.

5. Do not speak quickly on hell, or on the fact that Jesus is the only way for salvation. Hindus hear these things as triumphalism and are offended unnecessarily. Speak of hell only with tears of compassion. Point to Jesus so that it is obvious he is the only way, but leave the Hindu to see and conclude this for himself, rather than trying to force it on him. Richards says that a Hindu who professes faith in Christ must be helped as far as possible to work out the meaning of that commitment in his own cultural context.

He also warns: A new believer should be warned against making an abrupt announcement to his or her family, since that inflicts great pain and inevitable produces deep misunderstanding. Ideally, a Hindu will share each step of the pilgrimage to Christ with his or her family, so that there is no surprise at the end. An early stage of the communication, to be reaffirmed continually, would be the honest esteem for Indian/Hindu traditions in general that the disciple of Christ can and does maintain.

HINDU STUDENT MINISTRY

Steve Edwards, an IVCF staff member serving on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Virginia State University, recently outlined his view of Hindu ‘student ministry’ in no uncertain terms.

He observes that students from India have recently surpassed the Chinese as the largest international group on the campus where he serves, but that ‘in spite of their large numbers there are very few believers.’

Edwards acknowledges that while working with Indian students, the evangelists often “get a foot in the door” by meeting practical needs. This may include assisting with English or hospitality needs. “The best way to start is through friendship, taking the time to listen and to learn about their individual backgrounds and beliefs” he advises.

According to Edwards, “even if believing in Jesus were acceptable to the family, it would likely become a point of conflict when it came to issues of marriage and children. Hindus may and often do find Jesus personally appealing. But an individual decision to become a follower of Christ is quite difficult because it implies a rejection of one’s own dharma and the acceptance of the “Christian” dharma.”

He explains: “God has given us a wonderful opportunity to welcome them and share the good news of Christ with them. But significant obstacles exist. Therefore, it is vital for us to understand the challenges that we must face in sharing Christ with them and also the challenges they face in coming to Christ.

“Most Hindus readily acknowledge the reality of God’s work in life and are not afraid to discuss spiritual matters. As a result, offers to pray for and with them are rarely refused and often welcomed. This is a tangible way we can show our concern and ask God to bless them and provide specifically for their needs. Simply put, Hindus are open to spiritual things. Edwards reveals: “Recently, I met a new student from India who seemed quite interested in visiting church and perhaps a Bible study. But first he wanted to make sure that he didn’t need to be baptized or believe that Jesus was the only way to God before attending. As believers our response is to invite them to “Come and see,” with no strings attached and allow the person of Christ as seen in the Bible and the work of the Holy Spirit to lead them to faith.”

Noting that the majority of Indian students come from Hindu families, Edwards discusses conversion efforts directed at Hindu students on American campuses and, specifically, his experiences of prayer, partnerships and perseverance, which he claims has been essential in the formation of an ‘Indian Christian Fellowship’.

“It is my prayer that this would encourage others in sharing Christ with Indian students in their campuses and communities. May God pour out his grace on India and bring many into his kingdom in the coming years.”

OBSTACLES ENUMERATED

As Edwards sees it, Indian culture and religion present significant obstacles to communicating Christianity to Indian students. He is convinced that, “given the ancient spiritual strongholds that exist in the Hindu world it is essential that this ministry be founded upon and sustained by faithful prayer.”

One of the method he advocates, besides prayer, is “partnerships with like-minded Indian believers among students and in the community.” He notes that “while some Indian students want to interact with other cultures it seems that most prefer to remain in a culturally familiar environment.”In addition, explains Edwards, the partnership helps to dispel the widespread preconception that Christianity is just a Western religion.

Finally, he notes that a common suspicion among Hindus is that Christians want to make converts for selfish reasons like pride, financial gain or political power. In contrast, the Bible reminds us that love must be sincere. “We have seen God at work, but it is often a very slow process…We must be patient and wait for God to bring fruit as we are faithful in planting and watering the seeds of the Indian Christian Fellowship.”

Edwards, who began his involvement with Indian students while he was a graduate student in an engineering school, recalls: “I was surrounded by Indian students in my classes and actively involved in an international student fellowship. Like so many, I was amazed by the openness of the Chinese students who sought out knowledge of the Bible, often from the moment they arrived. Indian students on the other hand would scarcely ever come to any Christian sponsored event even though their numbers were comparable to those of the Chinese students.”

Edwards explains: “So, I began praying for India and for the students that I knew and learning about their culture and beliefs. During that time, God brought me into a close friendship with a Hindu background believer. Through our friendship I saw how difficult it was for him to reconcile his faith with family expectations and pressures. (I also developed a love for Indian food which is a fringe benefit).

“I also had a growing friendship with a Hindu classmate. We had numerous occasions to openly discuss spiritual matters and even though he freely admitted that his life was incomplete I was saddened to see so little change. Periodically, he would remind me that he was a Brahmin, the highest caste in Hinduism, which I learned only added to the barriers.

“One evening early on in our friendship he told me he would be very disappointed and hurt if I was only trying to be his friend in order to “convert” him. His directness shocked me, but it was something I needed to hear. It showed me the suspicions that Hindu students often have of the motives of Christians and their repulsion at the very idea of conversion. It also underscored how essential it is for our love to be sincere and the value of partnering with Indian believers so that Christianity is not equated with Western culture.”

Thus, on completion of graduate studies, Edwards joined as staff member with IVCF’s international student ministries. “From the start, one of my personal desires was to reach out to the large Indian community. While ministry opportunities with other student groups grew, it remained difficult to make more than isolated contacts with the Indian community.”

Edwards says he ‘began praying for the Indian community and for God to bring some Indian believers to join us. There were several years of prayer before we saw any answers, and many disappointments along the way. He once even contacted an Indian Christian student ‘to see if he had a desire to reach out to the Indian community but he frankly said “No.”’

During the following summer Edwards visited India and got a firsthand taste of Indian culture. “Those experiences were priceless and opened doors of trust and understanding that I doubt I could have gained any other way” he says.

According to Edwards, the next fall brought 3 Christian students from Kerala with whom he formed the Indian Christian Fellowship (ICF) “with the faculty advisor being one of our prayer partners who shared our heart for the South Asian students.”

“Later that semester, two Hindu friends we had been praying for went on an international evangelistic retreat with us because of the invitation of an Indian Christian friend. The speaker at the retreat was also from India and their experiences at that event challenged them to seek God further. Immediately afterwards they began attending the fellowship regularly. Even though they faced some challenges from other Indian friends, they soon became a part of our “family.”

“After attending the fellowship for one year, one of these students began following Jesus. Initially, it was a private decision. But it was soon apparent that it was a genuine step of faith with strong evidence of God’s work in his life. Within a short period of time his friends began to ask him what had happened to him and why he had changed. In the months that have followed, he has grown dramatically in his knowledge of the Word and in witness: bringing several friends to the fellowship and even leading a college friend to Christ.

“Although these students face difficult issues ahead (family and marriage especially) we are excited about how God’s work will overflow as we grow and serve together. As a result of these developments and as an answer to prayer, in just the past few months we have seen a significant increase in the number of students visiting the fellowship or curious about Christ.”

AGGRESSIVE EVANGELISM

The perception that Asian American students are currently disproportionately involved in InterVarsity and Campus Crusade for Christ appears to be well founded, according to available information.

The aggressive evangelism that took place in Asia after World War II was responsible for Christianizing an emigrant Korean and Chinese population. Evangelists note the dramatic growth in Korean Christianity from three million believers in 1974 to seven million in 1978 as a striking example. They say that a good percentage of Korean American evangelical students in the 1990s would appear to be the harvest of Campus Crusade’s farsighted sowing as Korean immigration to the United States rapidly increased in the decades following. A similar trajectory is seen for the emerging South Asian American community numbering about 3 million.

Asian American evangelicals report that being a Christian does not mean rejecting Asian American identity or Asian culture. One IVCF Chinese American staff worker involved with InterVarsity since the early 1970s explained that she came to a deeper understanding of herself as Asian American through the Pacific Alliance of Chinese Evangelicals and an IVCF Discipleship Training program that took her to Singapore. Other students find that evangelical Christianity reinforces “Asian ” values of family, work, and education: “Many Confucian ideas are similar to Christian ideals - like honoring your parents, living a moral, virtuous life, and working hard…there are definitely teachings from Buddhism that are very Christian…not harming anyone, trying to live a good life. ..Asian culture has it embedded that you are supposed to give respect to older people…My parents used to say bow to your grandmother when she comes. I might have done it but I tended to be rebellious. But now I know from the Bible that that’s a very Biblical thing. Now it’s not just for cultural reasons, but for Bible reasons I want to follow that part of Korean culture.”

And, as Bobby Jindal explained in a letter to a Sikh friend: “Only after years of open feuding did my parents realize my new faith had not caused me to reject them or my heritage.”

It is clear that evangelical Christianity will continue to attract large numbers of Asian American college students because it provides well-structured and nurturing communities tailored for surviving the anxieties, alienation and liminality of the college experience. Until well-documented evidence is available, we can only speculate as to why some Asian Americans, and specifically Korean and Chinese American students, are more involved in evangelicalism in comparison with Filipinos and South Asians.

An example of what evangelical faith entails is found in an Ivy League based Indian Christian Fellowship statement of purpose: “The purpose of ICF is to establish, assist, and encourage students who attest the Lord Jesus Christ as God Incarnate and have these major objectives: To lead others in to a personal faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. To help Christians grow toward maturity as disciples of Christ through the study of the Bible, through prayer, and through Christian fellowship. To present the call of God to the world mission of the Church, and to help students and faculty discover God’s role for them.”

THE CASE OF BOBBY JINDAL

As it turns out, the story of Piyush Bobby Jindal’s transformation from a devout young Hindu to a zealous Catholic offers an intriguing glimpse into the struggle, often traumatic, of a young Indian American caught between his heritage and his parents on the one hand and his intellectual and emotional turmoil in America.

“My journey from Hinduism to Christianity was a gradual and painful one,” Bobby Jindal acknowledged in a 1993 article that he wrote while he was a graduate student at Oxford. As Jindal readily confessed in that article, “it never occurred to me that I should consider any other religion; to be a Hindu was an aspect of my Indian identity.” So his parents were especially surprised that he had investigated Hinduism and found it lacking. “It was important that I had given our shared faith fair consideration.”

Jindal recalls, “my parents were infuriated by my conversion and have yet to fully forgive me.”

As Jindal explains, “My parents went through different phases of anger and disappointment. They blamed themselves for being bad parents, blamed me for being a bad son and blamed evangelists for spreading dissension. There were heated discussions, many of them invoking family loyalty and national identity.

He elaborates: “My parents have never truly accepted my conversion and still see my faith as a negative that overshadows my accomplishments. They were hurt and felt I was rejecting them by accepting Christianity. According to Jindal, his parents resorted to “ethnic loyalty” to counter his new faith.

What was the motivation for Jindal’s rejection of Hinduism and his acceptance of Christianity? The answer can be pieced together in his own words.

Essentially Jindal claims that having studied the Bible, he accepted Jesus Christ’s radical claim to divinity, along with Christ’s redemptive sacrifice on the cross. That is, Christ had died to redeem mankind from sin.

“I was comfortable in my Hindu faith and enjoyed an active prayer life; I only gradually felt a void and stubbornly resisted God’s call…it was truth and love that finally forced me to accept Christ as Lord” Jindal recalled in an article.

In comparing Hinduism with his new faith, Jindal noted that whereas “Hinduism taught me to earn my way to God’s grace” he found Christ’s sacrifice on the cross meant something personal for him. “God loved me and was lifting me up to Him” declared Jindal, two years after his conversion. The young Hindu American had examined Hinduism and found it wanting. Looked at from another perspective, the Hindus whom he approached were not competent enough to satisfy his intellectual curiosity.

While he explains that he is aware of “gross injustices in the name of truth and God” committed by missionaries in India and elsewhere, Jindal is appreciative of their enormous contributions to health and education. That’s why he exhorts: “Let us all become missionaries and live so that the world will know us by our love.”

In his 1993 article, Jindal wrote wistfully, “I long for the day when my parents understand, respect and possibly accept my faith. For now I am satisfied that they accept me.”

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Evangelism, Hindus & Hinduism | Print | No Comments »

Bhagvata Purana-Skandha 1

10. May 2010 by admin.

Bhagvata Purana-Skandha 1

–Bhaskar Dasgupta

I have to admit that I did not even know about this book till somebody told me that the Bhagvata Purana is also known as the fifth veda. I further saw references to this Purana in the Dharmasahastra book by Kane and then figured, it is high time that I actually take a look at this book praised by so many, but not discussed enough. And once I actually got my hands on a couple of copies, I think I figured out why this is relatively obscure (compared to the Vedas, Upanishads, Shruti’s and Smritis). Depending upon the version, the books range from 1500 to 2240 pages in length, containing north of thirteen thousand Sanskrit verses. One needs to be very dedicated or locked up for some serious time to really go through this. Nevertheless it is a beautiful book with lovely tales and I thought of reviewing it, as I really could not find any good reviews elsewhere.

Before I start, first some background and logistical points. I used the following books:

1. The Bhagavata Purana: v. 7 (Ancient Indian Tradition and Mythology) by J.L. Shastri and Ganesh Vasudeo Tagare (1994)

2. Bhagavat Purana by Ramesh Menon (2007)

3. A Study of the Bhagavata Purana or Esoteric Hinduism by Purnendu Narayana Sinha, 1901.

4. Srimad Bhagavata Puranam, Sanskrit, 2004.

5. Bhagavata Puranam, Sanskrit, 2006 (under revision)

6. Srimad Bhagavatam (Bhagavata Purana) by Swami A. C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupâda.

Quite a lot of the versions are different in formulation, usage of English and the so on. If one wants to be true to the Sanskrit versions (which themselves differ a bit), then the Prabhupada version is good, as it has the original Sanskrit, a word by word translation and a summary. In any case, my knowledge of Sanskrit is barely intermediate and I wouldn’t be comfortable in dealing with a review based upon that language based book. Reading Sanskrit is one thing, but reviewing in pure ancient Sanskrit? No Sir. If one wants to have a bit more colloquial English usage and more understanding as per modern usage, then I suggest the Menon version. Rest of them use a bit of archaic English and can be a bit difficult to digest. So this review uses the Menon version.

So how do you review such a monumental book? I was struggling with the answer. I could have reviewed the full book down in one long essay but then this would have missed out on giant parts. Doing a translation is simply out of the question. So after discussing it a bit, I hit upon the idea of writing a summary per Skandha (canto or book) and then highlighting any interesting points that popped up in my mind. This means twelve rather long essays, but I think I can live with that on my conscience that one has done justice to it. If you want to rather get a quick overview of the purana, then the wiki entry is a good place to start. Without further ado, lets crack on.

My first impression after I finished the book was that it was mainly about love, very very intense love. Extremely emotional love. Something that makes you weep uncontrollably. Not bawl, but weep. Not sure if you have experienced this, but it’s like none of your emotions (speech, sight, touch, smell…) are able to express it and tears are the only way to do so. I felt like this when I first held my kids in my arms. Or when I used to dance in front of Ma Durga during Durga Puja back home with the Dhunuchis. This book is an expression of very intense love towards Vishnu or his incarnation Krishna. Have you read Rumi? The feeling I got was a bit like what I felt when I read Rumi. Rumi, though, is a bit more earthy and this is a bit more esoteric, although some parts of the purana are quite earthy. It is Bhakti personified.

The purana is roughly dated to between 500 to 1000 AD, but it has gone through so many changes, accretions, embellishments, etc. that it is tough to date it correctly. Plus let us not forget that these are stories and generations of scholars and teachers in a vast land have told these stories in a variety of locales and to a huge number of people. It is a miracle that we actually get to a version in the first place.

The first Skandha introduces the purana, which written by Veda Vyasa, who writes this after completing the vedas and Mahabharat. The main reason behind writing this was that the Vedas and Mahabharat do not satisfactorily deal with the highest goal of knowledge and that is devotion to God (Bhakti). Another reason for for writing it, is to assist us in handling the Kali Yug, which came into being when Krishna died. When people begged him to leave something of him behind so that they can cope with the Kali Yug, Krishna poured his essence into the Bhagwat Purana.

Narada Muni is a key participant in the beginnings of the BP. An interesting story is said about him. Narada is disconsolate, because he is wandering around in Kali Yug and is observing the breakdown of divine order. While wandering on the banks of the Yamuna, he notices a young woman sitting next to two very old sick men, while being surrounded with many other young women. The young woman turns out to be Bhakti and the two old sick men are Gyan (knowledge) and Vairagya (detachment or renunciation). The other young women are the sacred rivers such as Ganga, etc. who are trying to provide comfort to Bhakti. The Kali Yug has devastated her two sons even though it spared her. Narada blesses her by saying that Bhakti will be the only way to salvation and then tries to rescue her two sons by chanting the Vedas and Upanishads in their ears, singing the Bhagvad Gita to them. They improved, but not completely. On beseeching the Lord to provide him with some guidance, a voice from the skies tells him to go speak to certain Munis. On searching and leter finding them, Narada asks the Munis about how to cure the two sons of Bhakti? The Munis state that he has to recite the BP to them and since it contains the essence of Lord Vishnu, it will revive them. So he does and Bhakti and her two sons are also revived.

But this was not the first time that the BP had been recited. Thirty years after Krishna died, Vyasa’s son Suka recited the BP to King Parikshit, grandson of Arjuna, son of Abhimanyu, who succeeded Yudhistra to the throne of Hastinapur. But this story is for later. The second great recitation of the BP happened two hundred years after the Kali Yug had started by Gokarna Muni.

The BP then embarks on a long tale of how a childless Brahman begged for a boon of a child from a Sanyasi. The Sanyasi gives a blessed fruit to him and asks his wife to eat it, keeping a vow of truthfullness, kindness and charity for an entire year, not eating more than one meal per day, and if that is done, then a pure golden hearted pious son will be born. But his wife did not want to ruin her figure or go through the pain of childbirth so she hatched a plan with her sister. The fruit was given over to their cow while her sister’s new born baby was smuggled in to be shown as the Brahman’s son called as Dhundhukari. Three months later, the cow gave birth to a human child with golden skin and eyes like lotus petals, but with cow ears. Hence his name, Gokarna (or Cow Ears). Both grow up together, but Dhundhukari turns out to be a devil in disguise, a disgusting sinner, while Gokarna is pure as the snow on Mount Kailash. The Brahman is at his wits end and Gokarna advices him to cultivate dispassion and renounce the world, which he does. Gokarna also leaves on a pilgrimage. Dhundhukari commits terrible crimes, beats up his own mother, steals, whores and lies and at the end, the whores decide to kill him and they do. Unfortunately, Dhundhukari remains behind on earth after death as a spirit. Gokarna senses Dhundhukari’s death and the fact that he is not truly dead, but is still a tortured spirit. Gokurna performs a shraddha at every holy spot, but it does not release Dhundhukari from the earth and finally he returns to his hometown. Dhundhukari begs him for help to be released and Gokurna then embarks on a deep dhyan (meditation) to Surya Deva (Sun God) to learn how to address this. The Sun God advices him to recite the BP as that is the only way Dhundhukari’s soul will be released. So Gokurna starts the recitation with many many people attending the week’s worth of recitation and when he ends, Dhundhukari is released from his earthly bounds.

The others who were listening, though, do not get their sins washed away. Gokurna is told by the sages that Dhundhukari fasted for seven days and he listened to Gokurna’s recitation with all his faculties and might. This is the reason why Dhundhukari was released and not the others. When the others learnt this, they begged Gokurna to recite the BP again which he did. This allowed all the listeners to also be washed free of their sins by Vishnu who appeared after a great conch shell boom in a blaze of light.

Thus ends the first book. I had to consciously lay aside my erupting cynicism. The first book tries hard to explain why the BP is so important and how it helps to wash away the sins. I thought about self praise? However, as I kept on reading, I realised that I was reading it as perhaps a professor wanting to write a book review and not as a worshipper or a person of faith wanting to learn. That switch was not easy and I found myself slipping back into the cynical, doubting persona many times. The apparent inconsistencies about the origins of the purana bothered me as well till I spoke to my father. He told me, if Vishnu is indeed the world, then how does it matter if one manifestation or another wrote or spoke what? What matters is the content. And that made perfect sense.

What was also a bit frightening for a grown man like me was the underlying concept of letting go. Letting go of everything and with tan, man and dhan (body, mind and wealth) and concentrate on the pursuit of Bhakti, devotion to God. I am not sure if I have achieved that and am very far away from the ideal. It felt quite strange reading about people who can be so dispassionate that they are able to walk away from everything that they hold dear (for me it would be my family, my iPhone, my books, etc.) and devote their all and everything to being in love with Krishna. I am not sure if I can ever do that and it was very humbling to find that I do not have the courage or guts to do so.

What a fascinating journey into a wonderful book which is raising more questions than answering them.

Posted via web from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Hindus & Hinduism | Print | No Comments »

Outrageous Portrayal of Hindu Gods

31. March 2010 by admin.

This is outrageous…!!! This is blatant and demeaning portrayal of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Nina Paley has graphically projected Lord Rama kicking Sita.

What is the difference between Nina Paley and an Islamist?

Protest against Nina Paley’s outright denigration of The Ramayan

ram walking on pregnant sita

ram sitting on sita

Lord Ram walking on pregnant Sita

Lord Ram sitting on Sita’s back

Lord Ram kicks pregnant Sita

Lord Hanuman plays the piano for Sita

Introduction

Nina Paley an American Cartoonist is the creator of the animated film ‘Sita Sings the Blues’ which is available for free viewing on the internet. A devout person cannot begin to imagine what Nina Paley has conjured up and graphically crystallised in this film wherein Lord Ram often kicks Sita…. and walks on her pregnant stomach…. These are only two of the many painful images one must endure. The only reason for watching this absurd film is to make people aware of what a completely false representation this film is of the Ramayan and how it nosedives into taking the issue of denigration to an unbelievably low level.

She states that this story is based on the Ramayan of Rushi Valmiki. But what she has done is take the ingredients of the epic story and give it a meaning which is completely opposite to the spiritual truths that the scripture conveys.Unfortunately , this film is being recommended on various parenting websites, for children to watch. Those who are unfamiliar with this Holy Scripture are going to accept this inane version as being the truth.

Revolting Scenes from the Film

	1. False representation:The commentators say that the Ramayana is not as true a story as the Bible. Spiritual fact: This seems to be an attempt to portray the Bible as being more trustworthy than the Ramayana. Yes, propaganda to prove Christianity’s superiority over Hinduism. This movie is part and parcel of the anti-Hindu movement and propagation of Christianity. This movie violates the religious feelings of Hindus. The Government must ban this film.
	2. False representation: Ravan was a good king and the only wrong thing that he did was steal Sita. (Editors comment: Like attracts like and so quite naturally anti-Hindu Neena Paley supports Ravana.) Spiritual fact: Such remarks show Ms. Palay’s anti-Hindu mentality by demeaning the Holy Scriptures of Hindus. For this she must apologise to all Hindus.
	3. False representation: Ravan’s sister tells Ravan about how beautiful Sita is and says that her breasts are like big round juicy lotuses. Sita is shown wearing a cholie that reveals her breasts in one outfit from above, and in another outfit from below the blouse. Spiritual fact: Such remarks shows her anti-Hindu mentality of criticizing Hindus Holy Scriptures. For this she must apologise to all Hindus.
	4. False representation: The commentator says that Ravana played the veena for Lord Shiva with his intestines and she shows Ravana’s intestines tumble out of his stomach and they play the veena. (Editors comment: Such spiritual ignorance on the part of Neena Paley makes her seem comical. This harms the religious feelings of Hindus. She should be prosecuted for this.) Spiritual fact: Actually what is mentioned in the Ramayan is that Ravana’s devotion was such that the 72 thousand nadis or energy channels in his body created a sound (Anahat nada) and this pleased Lord Shiva.
	5. False representation: Sita sings with her love for Ram in the forest. The words of her song were… ‘He is not an ang or a Saint and I know that with all his faults, he will still get by’. Then she imagines carrying Ram piggy back. After that she stands on all her fours (like a horse or a dog) and Ram is shown sitting on her back. (Editors comment: This is outright insulting to the faith of Hindus and destroys the reverence for the Ramanyan in children’s minds.)
	6. False representation: When Ravana speaks to Sita she speaks in an uncouth manner telling him, “Your ass is grass once Lord Ram comes here.” (Editors comment: Why has this cartoonist been allowed to spew out the filth in her mind and superimpose her nasty foul-mouthed words onto revered Divine beings ?)
	7. False representation: Sita is shown wearing a ridiculous amount of jewellery as the commentator says she dropped her jewellery to show the way to Lanka when she was abducted by Ravana. The commentator ridicules the Ramayan by questioning how Sita had so much jewellery when she had taken up the life of a sanyasi. Spiritual fact: Sita was only in exile. She was not a sanyasi. She dropped jewellery like her ring, anklets and earrings at strategic points on the path.
	8. False representation: One commentator viciously says that one needs to ‘give her one little tight thing’ for not returning with Lord Hanuman when he came to rescue her. Another says that Sita stayed back as she wanted Lord Ram to rescue her and defeat Ravan due to the ego of wanting ‘Her husband’ to be her rescuer and so she is called a ‘bloodthirsty’ woman and is depicted with blood coming out of her mouth and blood on her hands. Spiritual fact: Sita could not allow herself to be carried by Lord Hanuman as it is a Hindu woman’s Dharma not to be touched by any man other than her husband.
	9. False representation: When Hanuman reports to Ram about what he saw in Lanka, Lord Ram begins to sweat and then faints in fear. Spiritual fact: Lord Ram’s arrow never missed its target no matter where the target was. How could such a Divine warrior who was an incarnation on earth be afraid of a mere demon ?.
	10. False representation: When Lord Ram comes to rescue Sita, he says that she is impure and unfit to be his wife and that he had terrible suspicions about her character and conduct to the extent that the sight of her was painful to him. He dismisses her ends with the crushing statement, ‘I have no more use for you.’ Spiritual fact: Lord Ram says the opposite in the Ramayan. In addition, the Ramayan states that Lord Ram surrendered to Agni devata and she sent an illusionary form of Sita to Lanka so that the real Sita was kept safe and after the ‘Test by Fire’ that Sita underwent successfully, Agni devta returned the real form of Sita to Lord Ram.
	11. False representation:Sita sings a song saying ‘Ram is mean to me’ and Lord Ram is depicted kicking Sita into the fire at the time of her agnipariksha (Test by fire) and He kicks her at the time of banishing her from the kingdom. Lord Ram nonchalantly also walks over Sita’s pregnant stomach (Editors comment: The way to extinguish a religion is to first create utter disrespect for it in the minds of people about their faith. Then ridicule the followers so that they are downright ashamed of being Hindu. Then the lost directionless Hindu populace will be soft targets to defeat on any front.)

Our fellow Hindu Brothers and Sisters, lodge your protest !

Are you going to blindly allow this unrighteous strategy to work ? Or are you willing to stand up for Dharma and realise that in this increasingly unrighteous world, ‘Only Dharma protects the Dharmic’. Ultimately Dharma will be established in the world and evildoers will be destroyed. But each Hindu is now being called upon to play his/her part and do something to stop this outright denigration.

Become a ‘vanar’ of Lord Hanumans army ! Make your small offering towards Dharma by lodging your protest with the US Embasy.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Hindus & Hinduism, India | Print | No Comments »

How To Remove Common Misconceptions About Hinduism

9. November 2009 by admin.

Hinduism is a vast religion with multiple facets. It is the oldest religions in the world. For the less informed, Hinduism may look too confusing, too complicated to understand, and too contradictory in its precepts and practices. Even many Hindus do not know the exalted philosophies of the religion. Naturally, there are many misconceptions commonly prevalent about Hinduism, some propagated by vested interests, some by ill-informed westerners and some by self-doubting Hindus. Here is an attempt to clear up some of those misconceptions.

1) Know that Hinduism does not have 330 million Gods.

As per Hindu mythology, this count actually refers to Devas - celestial beings - but not Gods. Deva is a Sanskrit term that at times is used to glorify Gods, but not to represent Gods. This usage has led to the mischievous misinterpretation by westerners to denounce Hinduism as a religion of 330 million gods. Unfortunately, many ill-informed Hindus, too, have taken to believe in this misperception. Devas, according to mythology, live in Indralokha (or Devalokha, an equivalent of Heaven) and they are none other than human beings in earlier births who did extraordinarily good deeds with a desire to enjoy the fruits of such deeds. They enjoy the fruits of those deeds in Deva Lokha, and once exhausted, they have to take birth again in this world. According to the mythology, this cycle is an ongoing phenomenon.

2) Know that Hinduism, in its essence, is not a religion of multiple Gods.

Hinduism permits worship of multiple God forms, endowed with different looks, powers, and attributes, who, in reality, represent the One God, known as Brahman, or Parabrahman, Paramatma or Satchidananda. Hinduism accepts the basic differences in every person in taste, temperament and capacity of intake in the matter of religion. A woman found distasteful to one person can be the soul-stirring sweetheart of another person. When such a difference in taste can exist, why not allow different tastes in the worshiping of God? Thus Hinduism permits you to choose a specific God form most appealing and lovable to you; it encourages you to believe wholeheartedly that that particular God form indeed is the one supreme God. A chaste woman considers her husband alone to be the most handsome and most wonderful person; likewise, at the lower echelons of religion, a believer’s conviction that his personal God alone is the most powerful and the “only true God” is also encouraged.

As a person matures in his religious progress, he surpasses his narrow convictions. He understands by experience that one supreme lord has, by His grace, adapted to come in the form of his personal God and that He presents Himself in other forms to satisfy other sects of believers. At the ultimate level of experience, the seeker perceives that the whole universe is simply nothing other than God and it includes his own soul, too.

3) Know that Hinduism has not ordained that the society should be caste-based with all the concomitant discriminations.

Hinduism had accepted the practical fact that there will always be differences among persons in intellectual, physical and mental capabilities. For the society to run smoothly like well-oiled machinery, there has to be a well-defined division of labor. The society needs all sorts of people who do their jobs to the best of their ability doing those activities best suited to them. The society needs peasants and artisans (‘Shudra’), traders (‘Vysya’), intellectuals and teachers (‘Brahmin‘), and warriors (‘Kshatriya‘). Each class requires its own skill sets, physical and mental capabilities, food habits, ethical and moral codes of conduct and the Hindu Dharma has provided these guidelines. What is best suited to one class need not be a benchmark for another. The society at large accepted these classifications as matters of fact (without acrimony) in ancient days. It is also said that such a division of labor was not originally based on family lineage. But when followed over generations, it gradually turned into a caste system and further degenerated into upper and lower classes with discrimination

and acrimony between them. This is actually a sociological phenomenon and it is incorrect to blame the religion for it.

4) Know that Hinduism, by its Karma theory and the concept of rebirth, does not say that one has to gradually take birth “from lower to upper class” before attaining Moksha. Hinduism says that as long as one has desires, one has to take rebirth. The rebirth can be in any class of the society and even a rebirth as an animal is not ruled out. Even a highly spiritually oriented Brahmin may get a rebirth in the form of an animal just to satiate some odd, unquenched desires of the previous birth. 5) Know that Hinduism does not say that the experience of God is reserved for Brahmins (the upper class/priest class) only.

Traditionally, Brahmins, by virtue of their social status, had the exclusive access to the highest scriptural knowledge (of Vedas) in those days. That way, they were better informed of the nuances of the highest religious facts. But that never made them exclusively able to attain the vision of God. The knowledge about swimming acquired by a person by reading books, but without any exposure to water, is useless. Likewise, in Hinduism, the personal experience of God is what really matters (and not the scriptural knowledge).

There are countless great masters in Hinduism who have experienced God without any theoretical knowledge of scriptures. Traditionally, even great pundits and Brahmin scholars kneel before these unlettered divine souls, many of whom are not Brahmins by birth, to learn about the true experience of God from them. Umpteen examples are available in Indian history on this count. The phenomenon of Brahmins dominating the religious scenario and showing discrimination towards other castes is again a sociological development and not a religiously ordained one.

6) Know that Hinduism is not totally anti-materialistic and does not totally discourage enjoyment.

What Hinduism says is that materialistic pursuits or running behind sensual pleasures is not going to fetch you everlasting happiness. It only says that behind any unbridled searching for enjoyment, there is always a pain lurking behind. Hinduism advises one to practice moderation, to be watchful, and not to get carried away. Hinduism does place liberation - ‘Moksha‘ as the ultimate goal of life and for the majority, the path of progress towards the goal (Moksha) includes Dharma (righteousness), Artha (materialism) and Kama (sensual enjoyments). The important point is that the materialistic and sensual enjoyments (Artha and Kama) must always be guided by righteousness (Dharma). Leading a life this way, one can gradually understand the transient nature of worldly life, acquire dispassion (‘Vairagya‘) and the mind then yearns for liberation (Moksha), the ultimate goal.

It is no doubt that Hinduism gives the highest regard to renunciation. But again, for the society at large, the recommended way of living so as to attain the supreme goal starts at ‘Brahmacharya‘ (celibacy at a young age while acquiring education), followed by ‘Grihasta‘ (married life of a householder), ‘Vanaprasta‘ (living frugally in a secluded way at the forest, once the couple has completed their duty toward their offspring) and finally ‘Sanyasa‘ (total renunciation). When an earnest seeker is mature enough to comprehend the transient nature of worldly life, has a high degree of discrimination and dispassion and yearns for God, he can opt to renounce much earlier, without going through all these stages one by one.

7) Know that Hinduism does not preach fatalism and does not negate self-effort.

It is wrong to think that by advocating Karma theory (which says that for every action in the past, one has to face the reaction inescapably in the future and this cycle transcends births over births), Hinduism encourages a fatalistic attitude. What Hinduism says is that one cannot have freedom of choice in facing the repercussions of past actions, but one does have the free will to choose his present actions. It is quite obvious that only because we have the freedom of choice of action, we have accumulated our past Karmas!

The essence of Hinduism on this matter is two-fold. One: The reactions to our past actions are not entirely self-propelling; they are indeed executed by the will of God; the more one surrenders to God and the more one accepts with humility the divine dispensation, the more one gets relief from the impinging effects of Karma. Two: By carefully choosing one’s present actions based on Dharma, by doing acts with dispassion and a sense of surrender to the supreme, one paves the way for escaping from the evil effects of his present actions in the future

Know that Hinduism does not say that faith and surrender to a Hindu God alone are the way to salvation.

Hinduism has two major approaches to the concept of God. One starts by negating “I” and the other starts and ends with “I”.

In the first school (Bhakti Yoga - the path of love), the whole universe is God; It is God who creates, preserves and destroys. He is omnipresent and omnipotent. In front of him, “I” am nothing. I have no individuality. I, too, am part of him. He, the Paramatman, is the true existence. I, the Atman, am part and parcel of (and subservient to) Him.

In the second school (Gnyana Yoga - the path of Wisdom), the seeker thinks “I don’t know whether a God exists; whether he is with form or without form; I don’t know whether the world is his creation; But one thing I know; I exist. In waking, dreaming or deep sleep, I am aware of my existence. When I think, “I am,” at that moment, everything else also comes into existence. When my mind ceases to function (as in deep sleep), the whole world, the entire creation vanishes. Everything - the world, the cosmos, the personal God of worship - everything is a product of the mind. When the seeker inquires to find ‘Who am I?” and truly experiences this reality in a truly “mindless” state, he grasps the fact that his soul, Atman, is none other than the Brahman, the supreme soul.

9) Hinduism does not say that possession of occult powers is an indication that one has attained God realization. Occult powers (Siddhi) may develop in a person who is deeply involved in spiritual practices with single-pointed concentration. But it has to be understood that presence of Siddhi is not an indication of a person’s attainment of true spiritual wisdom. The highest goal being God realization in Hinduism, obtaining Siddhis in fact can distract a person from his goal and cause spiritual downfall. This is the warning given by all great spiritual masters of Hinduism. But a person who has reached his goal, may still have Siddhis in him but he cares the least about them. It is up to him to use them for the good of others or not. 10) Know that Hinduism does not say that one should blindly believe his Guru to attain salvation.

For an earnest seeker who is convinced that attaining Moksha - salvation/God realization/self-realization - is the goal of life, Hinduism emphasizes the need for surrendering to a Guru (rather to a Satguru - a Guru of the highest order who has personally experienced the Supreme Truth). Hinduism encourages one to do all the questioning and doubting before selecting a Guru; After surrendering to a Guru, asking probing questions of the Guru until getting convincing answers is also encouraged. At the same time, Hinduism is very clear that egotism is one of the greatest impediments to attaining the supreme truth. That’s why great masters say that unconditional surrender (rather than egotistic arguments and doubting) is the best option to receive the grace of the Satguru.

Other than the above, there are always differences of opinions among various schools of philosophies in Hinduism about the interpretation of scripture. But these are quite normal and acceptable in a vast religion like Hinduism. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa used to say, “Until one gets the vision of God, there will always be lurking doubts; Once divine vision is had, all doubts will vanish once for all.”

http://kingmaker21.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-to-remove-common-misconceptions.html

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Hindus & Hinduism | Print | No Comments »

Hinduism Indian Religion Hindu Gods & Philosophies

5. November 2009 by admin.

Creationism vs Evolution has always been a topic of hot debate between Christian/Jewism/Islamic scholars and modern scientists. Why? Because science claims that human beings evolved from monkeys but these religions preach that God “created” humans and sent them to the earth. Hinduism is the ONLY religion that actually combines scientific theory with religious mythology! It might come as a surprise to many people, but Hinduism actually explained Darwin’s theory of Evolution much before Darwin! This is in accordance with many other scientific discoveries/inventions that Hindus made thousands of years before modern scientists.

So how does Hinduism explain Darwin’s theory of evolution? Let me backtrack a little, for the readers who are not familiar with mythology - God Vishnu (one of the trinity in Hinduism) is said to incarnate on Earth periodically and in various “forms”. The “forms” might be some animal form or human or humanoid forms. Now, many Christian/Islamic scholars scoff at the whole “God incarnating as a fish” concept but they don’t realize that Hindus have discovered and documented the biological theory of evolution and these stories are just a form of easy documentation. Ok, enough digressing, let’s get into the specifics of how early Hindus documented the theory of evolution via the mythology of incarnations/avatars (avtars) of Vishnu. According the the modern theory of evolution, Homo Sapiens started out as Fish in the water and went through many different stages before finally evolving into Homo Sapiens. Now let’s get to the actual details. I’ll explain each stage of the evolution first as described by modern science and then as described by Hindu texts - Stage 1 - Chordates (Fish) vs MatsyaModern Science:
hinduism-evolution-theory-matsya Proto-Amphibians that primarily lived in the water, this can be seen as the first stage of life. Examples are prehistoric fishes.

Hinduism:
The very first incarnation of Vishnu was Matsya avatar and Matsya literally means Fish. It clearly parallels with the scientific view. Stage 2 - Tetrapodes (Reptiles with legs) vs Kurma (tortoise) Modern Science:
Fish finally evolved out of water became Reptiles (with legs to be accurate). The examples are tortoise, lizards etc.Hinduism:
Second avatar of Vishnu is Kurma. Kurma means Tortoise which is a reptile that walks on four legs. Again it’s a direct parallel with the scientific view. Stage 3 - Mammals vs Varaha (Boar)

Modern Science:
Reptiles evolved into Mammals that could bear children and lived only on the land.Hinduism:
Varaha (Boar) avatar represents land dwelling Mammals. You may ask - why Boar? Why not a deer or monkey or some other mammal? The reason is that Boar belongs the the “Suina” family whose maxillary or teeth are in front and therefore they do not have to swallow and regurgitate their food just like us humans! It’s extremely enlightening to note that Hinduism had such a very insightful knowhow thousands of years ago! Stage 4 - Primates (to Hominidae) vs Narasimha Modern Science:
Finally primates were evolving into Hominidae forms that looked more like humans, were partially bipedalled (walk on legs) but their brains were still not quite developed. They can be figuratively seen as having partly human lower body and animal like upper body. Hinduism:
Narasimha avatar is a more abstract representation of a Hominidae that is half human and half animal. The interesting thing to note here is that Narasimha has the upper body of a lion but lower body of a man. This is important because this directly relates to the idea of a pre-human without a well developed brain but with the partial ability to become bipedal (walk on legs). Also, Lion was used because it’s primarily a carnivore just like the early Hominidae. Another interesting observation is that the Narasimha avatar is characterized by being in the “middle” of two things (being neither and midway) and that directly correlates to Hominidae that is about halfway though to being human! So, Narasimha is a perfect way to explain the pre-Homo Erectus form. Stage 5 - Hominidae before Homo Erectus (more like humans but much shorter) vs Vamana Modern Science:
Finally Hominidae got closer to Homo Erectus was evolved. He was bipedal (walk on legs) more human looking but very short. Hinduism:
Vamana avatar represents a being that is very close to humans but is extremely short. I guess, the parallel is obvious! Stage 6 - Homo Erectus (to Homo Sapiens) vs Parashurama Modern Science: Homo Erectus and then Homo Sapien was evolved that was about as tall as present day humans and could use tools. Homo Sapien is the present day human and biological evolution ends here. Hinduism: Parashurama avatar represents a man with an Axe. As you notice, unlike earlier Avatars, this is the first avatar of Vishnu that has no animal characteristics and wields an Axe. So basically, Parashuaram is what the current day human would be who could also use tools, in other words Homo Sapien. Again, the Avatar as described by Hinduism matches perfectly with the description of Homo Sapien! Stage 7 - Homo Sapiens exterminate Homo Neanderthalensis vs Rama kills demons Modern Science:
There were other “types” of humans evolving in parallel to Homo Sapiens, they are called Homo Neanderthalensis. So, another step in biosocial evolution is the extinction of Homo Neanderthalensis so that only Homo Sapiens (us) remained. These “other humans” had distinctly different bone structures and body types and it’s not a far stretch of imagination to realize that these “other humans” can very well be the “demons” (asuras) mentioned in Hinduism. Hinduism:
According to mythology, suras (gods) and asuras (demons) had been warring since the start of time and it’s the Lord Rama (7th avatar of Vishnu) that finally killed all the asuras so that human beings can live in peace. Again a direct parallel. Stage 8 - Advanced in civilizations and culture and to todays world vs Tretayuga Modern Science: Mankind never stopped since they learned to use tools and all the

Neanderthalensis were eliminated. Civilizations were formed, wars were fought, kingdoms were born and finally the world is as we see it today. The chief characteristic here is the increasing complexity of life and society. Hinduism: Krishna’s incarnation represents the stage where the world was in Treta Yuga and therefore far more complex than the Satya Yuga. I think a proper explanation with comparison of economy, business, society, language and other factors will require a separate post. Conclusion: The 8 avatars of Vishnu are strikingly similar to different stages of human evolution and details like using Boar (an animal from Suina family) and extermination of Neanderthalensis etc leave no doubt that the avatars of Vishnu really describe evolution of human beings so it’s clear that Hindus had figured the evolution/origin of species (and perhaps natural selection) thousands of years before Darwin.It’s unbelievably that Hindus correctly theorized evolution thousands of years before western scientists did. This is another gem from long forgotten ancient Hindu scientific discoveries/inventions! Or is it another example of when western scientists stole Hindu scientific discoveries/inventions?

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Hindus & Hinduism, India | Print | No Comments »

The myth of “1000 years of Hindu slavery”

1. November 2009 by admin.

One thousand years of slavery. Millennia of defeat and domination caused by a dogmatic adherence to the doctrine of ahimsa, preventing an effective resistance to foreign domination. This is what most Hindus are brought up to believe about their history.

These and other such theories are happily put forward as history of Hindus for the past 14 centuries and postulated by self proclaimed scholars from both within and without the Hindu fold. It was something I have heard from my youth and accepted without question. However some thoughts rankled in my mind. If the Hindus were truly slaves for a thousand years plus, then how have we survived to this day with dignity and honour and with a spiritual tradition stretching back to the mists of time and beyond? Many other cultures, civilisations and spiritual traditions have been reduced to museum pieces, but the words of the Holy Vedas are recited in an identical fashion today as they were thousands of years ago when first revealed to the Rishis. This is no mean achievement. How did Hindus survive and manage to maintain a civilisational identity stretching into the dawn of human history? How was Sanatana Dharma kept alive as a living presence in the world, and indeed regenerated over time if the Hindus were slaves for so long? This impelled me to look for the truth myself, and undertake a study of the history of the Hindu people. The beginning of Hindus’ “thousand years of slavery” is supposed to have begun with the overrunning of India by Muslims of Arab and Turkish origin. It is popularly believed that Hindus put up a feeble defence and that the Islamic armies had a cake walk through India. If we examine at what actually happened, however, we see that Hindus put up a huge struggle, which was eventually victorious. Following the death of their founder, Muhammad we see the Arab Khilafat expand swiftly over the Middle and Near East, pouring over the deserts of North Africa and crossing the waters to begin a six century occupation of Spain and beyond. The combined might of Christian Europe struggled again and again to reclaim the ‘holy lands’ to end in bitter failure with the rise of the Ottoman Empire, who ruled over a large part of Eastern Europe for centuries. On the other side, the lands of Iran, home of the ancient and historical Persian civilisation fell to the yet undefeated Arab warriors and within a short period the indigenous culture becoming extinct or expelled, today being largely the confine of museums and relics. The Arab hordes then pushed into the Indian Subcontinent, land of the Hindus, overwhelming the small desert region of Sindh and then attempted to push and conquer the existing Hindu kingdoms. Here however their advance was stopped. With the inspiration of Sant Gorakhnath the warrior clans of the Rajputs united under their legendary king Bappa Rawal and in a series of Battles known collectively as the Battle of Rajashtan inflicted a heavy defeat on the Arab invaders in 738 CE. Any further advances by the Arabs were repelled, impelling the formation of large organised Hindu states in the centre and west of India. Frustrated by their failures in India the Arabs turned northwards shortly after defeating the Chinese Empire in the Battle of Talas in 751 CE opening the gate for the Islamisation of Central Asia. India remained unaffected for another three hundred years. (the “thousand years of slavery theory” was beginning to shake) The Islamisation of Central Asia began to grow apace and one by one the ancient Buddhist kingdoms began to totter and fall as tribe after tribe joined the ranks of the growing Muslim religion. The destruction of Buddhism and its centers in the region prompted an exodus towards India, and the conversion of the remaining clans to Islam. The Muslim armies were expanded, filled with the zeal and energy of new converts, who were sent spiraling towards the Middle East to fight the advancing Crusaders under the leadership of Saladin. Another wave of attacks poured towards India resulting in large scale damage and loot from the subcontinent under the leadership of Mahmud of Ghazni around 1000 CE. Two further centuries passed as further advances were resisted until a breakthrough around 1200 CE allowed the invaders access to the North Indian plains. The remaining Buddhists were slaughtered or converted in an unprecedented orgy of violence and horror. The majority Buddhist regions of Afghanistan, Kashmir and West Punjab joined the crescent banner of Islam. However the conversion of Hindus was slower and the resistance was more fierce. Hindu warrior clans kept up a relentless resistance fighting from the deserts, the mountains and the forests. The heavy cavalry of the Muslim Turks which had proved fatal to the Crusaders of Western Europe were victorious on the plains of North India but this did not prevent an endless cycle of attack and counter attack by the Hindus. It took nearly another hundred years under the leadership of the infamous Aladdin Khilji for the Muslims Empire firmly established itself in India. This mantle was inherited by the Tughlaqs only to lead to a revival from the Hindu population. The religious traditions of India had been severely mauled by the endless bloodletting over the past two centuries. Many important institutions and temples were destroyed. Prosperity suffered, as it tends to in times of continuous war. This created a certain weakening of Hindu society. Religion became preserved in rituals which were les and les understood. Sanskrit learning was on the decline. Caste became more rigid. However, a religious renewal took place in the form of the “Bhakti movement”. A simplified form of Hinduism particularly suitable to the times emerged. A new wave of spiritual teachers preaching that simple devotion and love of God and love of all people and creatures is the simplest root to salvation. A message of defiance and brotherhood from saints and rishis from all corners of India emerged. From Tukram and Namdev from the west of India, from Nanak in Punjab, from Chaitanya in the east and Kabir in the north plus many others, the message of dharma revived itself in the teeth of an implacable enemy. The fearless postulating of the brotherhood of all mankind defied the savagery raging around them as the Turks endeavoured to convert the entire subcontinent to Islam and the Hindus fighting tooth and nail to resist. The Muslim empire seemed to rest on specified military encampments and cities surrounded by a sea of hostile Hindus usually left to their own devices. Hundred of Rajahs and Maharajahs dotted the nation living in virtual independence from the central authorities in which traditions of culture and religion were maintained unchanged through the centuries. Other larger organised resistance emerged in the Vijaynagara Empire of South India around 1336 CE which consolidated Hindu resistance for over two centuries. In the north the revival of the Rajput kingdoms and the defiance of kings like those of Orissa under the Gajapati Kings, the hills of Punjab under Jasrath Khokhar and the rise of neo Hindu kingdoms in the north east of India along with the entire hill region signaled the revival of Hindu rule over vast tracts of India. A steady period of Hindu growth then ensued until by the dawn of the 1500’s the southern region of India was dominated by the mighty king of the Vijaynagara Empire, Krishnadevarya and the north by the revival of the valiant Rajputs under the charismatic leadership of Rana Sanga (grandfather of the equally illustrious Rana Pratap). The tides of history however turned again – with the influx of cannons and other artillery utilised by Babur the Mughal entered into the Indian subcontinent against which the wild charges of the Rajputs and Pathans had no answer. The reckless disregard of their own lives in the defence of dharma saw a series of battles in which the Hindu forces fought quite literally to the last man woman and child, most famously the siege of Chhitor in 1567. The utter refusal of the Hindus to surrender in the century old tussle with Islam for political control over the subcontinent was a lesson not lost by the new Emperor Akbar. He instead moved away from the tenets of Islam to a new faith of the Din i Ilahi. By following the age old traditions of religious toleration in India he endeared himself to the majority population and through a period of compromise and alliance brought a brief period of peace to the troubled land. This tenuous alliance was shattered by his descendant Aurangzeb who in his zeal for the establishment of an Islamic state caused an upheaval which left the Mughal Empire fall beyond all hope of repair. The renewal of the civilisational Hindu-Islam conflict saw the rise of a generation of Sants and holy men inspiring the people for the defence of dharma which saw the might of the Mughals humbled by Rajputs, Marathas, Jats, Satnamis, Ahoms, Sikhs, Bundelas and others. In a cataclysmic wave of defiance the Mughal Empire lay broken and on its ruins rose a number of Hindu states competing for space in the subcontinent. The inspirational rise of the Maratha king Shivaji and his bold defiance of the Mughal empire in the noontide of its realm is an apt example. Who did the British wrest control of India from? When the British came on the Indian scene, it if thought or assumed by many people that he British took control of India from the Mughals. This is not true. In fact, by the time that the British emerged as a major force in India, the Muslim political power in the subcontinent had been virtually cast down. The situation is best defined by a British author, H.G.Keene The idea, however, that the British have wrested the Empire from the Mohamadans is a mistake. The Mohamadans were beaten down — almost everywhere except in Bengal — before the British appeared upon the scene; Bengal they would not have been able to hold, and the name of the “Mahratta Ditch” of Calcutta shows how near even the British there were to extirpation by India’s new masters. Had the British not won the battles of Plassey and Buxar, the whole Empire would ere now have become the fighting ground of Sikhs, Rajputs, and Mahrattas and others. Except the Nizam of the Deccan there was not a vigorous Musalman ruler in India after the firman of Farokhsiar in 1716; the Nizam owed his power to the British after the battle of Kurdla in 1795), and it was chiefly British support that maintained the feeble shadow of the Moghul Empire, from the death of Alamgir II. to the retirement of Mr. Hastings. Not only Haidarabad but all the other existing Musalman principalities of modern India owe their existence, directly, or indirectly, to the British intervention.
The march of western civilisation ended the Hindu revival at a time when Hindus exercised control over almost the entire subcontinent. But it took Three wars with the Marathas, Two wars with the Sikhs, two wars with the Gurkhas, war with the Jaats, also smaller ranging wars with the Santhals, Sanyasis and many others – all Hindu rebellions. Hindus unwillingness to surrender culminated in the huge uprising from the predominantly Hindu sepoys in 1857 which almost brought the British Indian Empire to a swift conclusion being the largest anti colonial uprising in history. The end result was 90 years of imperialist rule. This was matched by a concerted disarming of the population by the British rulers, leaving only select regions free from the disarming which were perceived as loyal to the British under the flawed marital race theory. This theory propagated by the forerunners of the concepts of eugenics and Nazism believed the Indian races could not match the British combination of physical and mental facilities. Thus a large percentage of Hindu population, despite holding sway of almost all of the Indian subcontinent were delegated into the non martial section by the British. Other sections believed to be of sufficient physical abilities (but not mental development) were delegated by the Imperialists as ‘martial races’ This flawed theory was propagated as an absolute truth (still followed by some) and together with the disarming of the population led to the diminishing of the martial spirit amongst Hindus. However the theories propagated by the British found challengers from the Hindus. Spurred by a revaluation of their history and the knowledge of western theories a new revival began to take fruit. From the universal preaching of Swami Vivekananda to the guns of the Anushilan Samiti the Hindus were at the forefront of a growing anti colonial challenge to the most powerful empire in the world. Finally finding control of the subcontinent untenable in the teeth of endless opposition the British Indian Empire collapsed in a wave of unprecedented bloodshed which has seen a slow and steady spread and reach of the Hindu world. So again, I was stumped by this ‘thousand years of slavery’ theory. I was even more surprised to find this postulated by otherwise very earnest Hindus in the mistaken belief of their own history. When examining our history I saw a spirit of defiance stretching over a thousand years in the face of implacable and merciless enemies, who put an end to many other cultures and civilisations. The same forces which had overcome virtually every indigenous civilisation in the world had thrown their entire might against India – and failed. Attack after attack was defeated. Horrific massacres did not force the people to abandon their religion and identity. The destruction of holy places did not see dharma die but rise again and overcome their opponents with the power of truth. The banner of freedom was raised generation after generation despite the best attempts of some vested parties to blur the truths and sacrifices made again and again. So 150 of effective rule by the Muhamadans and 90 of British rule was suddenly expanded into ‘one thousand years of slavery’ an utterly absurd contention is being bandied about like an absolute truth but has failed to hide the facts that remain unaltered in history. Ancient faiths like Buddhism and Zorasterism were almost obliterated from the Middle East, Central Asia and India but the Hindus rose in defiance to emerge even stronger at the end of the blood soaked millennia. Even well wishers of Hindus, lost in their Victorian outlook on India have propagated the same absurdities in total insult of the enduring Hindu spirit. The spirit is best exemplified by the renowned historian Sir Jadunath Sarkar when talking of the legendary Maratha king Shivaji: He [Shivaji] has proved that the Hindus can still produce not only clerks and soldiers but rulers of men. (…) Shivaji proved that the tree of Hinduism is not really dead – that it rose from the seemingly crushing load of centuries of attack and put forth new leaves and lift its head to the skies. Courtsey: M. R. Vaghela
Hindu Voice UK, 26 September 2009
k/issues/30/history.htm

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in History, Hindus & Hinduism, India | Print | No Comments »

Gandhi’s Muslim Appeasement

28. October 2009 by admin.

Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it Gandhi’s Muslim Appeasement It is now well known that Muslim appeasement was an inseparable part of Gandhi’s quack doctrine of Non-violence. But many do not know why he, while he was in South Africa, adopted, or compelled to adopt this dirty policy in 1908. At that time the South African government imposed an unjust tax of £3 on every Indian living in South Africa and Gandhi initiated talks with South African government on this matter. But the Muslims did not support this move and were displeased with Gandhi. In addition to that Gandhi, in one occasion, made some critical comments on Islam while he was speaking at a gathering. Furthermore, he tried to make a comparative estimate of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, which made the Muslims furious. A few days later, on 10th February 1908, a group of Muslims under the leadership of a Pathan called Mir Alam entered Gandhi?s house and beat him mercilessly. When Gandhi fell on the ground the Muslim attackers kicked him right and left and beat him with sticks. They also threatened to kill him. From this incident onward, Gandhi stopped to make any critical comment on Muslims as well as on Islam. According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, this incident was a milestone in Gandhi’s life and afterwards Gandhi began to over look even the most heinous crime committed by the Muslims. An example would help the reader to understand the matter. On 23rd December 1926, a Muslim assassin called Abdul Rashid stabbed Swami Shraddhananda to death, when the swami was ill and lying on his bed. The reader may recall that Swami Shraddhananda was a pracharak (whole time worker) of Arya Samaj and he started a Suddhai Yajna to bring the converted Muslims of this country back to Hinduism. But his activity was detested by the Muslims. A couple of months earlier a Muslim woman came to the Swami and expressed her desire to return to Hinduism with her children. However her husband brought an allegation of abduction in the court of law against the Swami. But the court quashed the allegation and set the Swami free. The incident turned the Muslims extremely furious and within a few days Abdul Rashid assassinated him. After a few days of this incident, Gandhi went to Gauhati to deliver his speech at the national conference of Indian National Congress. The atmosphere was depressed and gloomy due to unusual death of Shraddhananda. But Gandhi made everyone dumbfounded and began his speech by addressing the assassin Abdul Rashid as “Bhai Abdul Rashid”. Without caring for the reaction of the listeners, he continued, “Now you will perhaps understand why I have called Abdul Rashid a brother, and I repeat it. I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami’s murder. Guilty indeed are those who excited feeling of hatred against one another.” Thus he indirectly held Swami Shraddhananda responsible for his murder, as he was propagating hatred through his Suddhi Yajna. Moreover, he wrote in the obituary note, “He (the Swami) lived a hero. He died a hero.” In other words, if a Hindu falls victim to the knife of a Muslim’s assassin, Hindus should consider it a heroic death. It should be pointed out here that the said policy of Muslim appeasement originated by Gandhi, under the garb of (pseudo) secularism was responsible for the Partition of the country in 1947. Many of our countrymen, still today, firmly believe that Gandhi was against partition as in the public meetings, he used to say, ?Vivisect me, before you vivisect India?. When he was saying this in public meetings, he was expressing just the opposite view through his writings. The reader may recall that, on March 26, 1940, the leaders of the Muslim League raised the issue of creation of Pakistan as a separate homeland for them. Hardly a couple of weeks later, supporting demand, Gandhi wrote, ?Like other group of people in this country, Muslims also have the right of self determination. We are living here as a joint family and hence any member has the right to get separated.? (Harijan, April 6, 1940). A couple of years later, he also wrote, ?If majority of the Muslims of this country maintain that they are a different nation and there is nothing common with the Hindus and other communities, there is no force on the earth that can alter their view. And if on that basis, they demand partition that must be carried out. If Hindus dislike it, they may oppose it?, (Harijan, April 18, 1942). The reader should also recall that the Congress Working Committee, in its session on June 12, 1947, decided to place the partition issue to be placed before the All India Congress Committee (AICC) for a debate and the AICC approved the issue in its session held on June 14-15, 1947. In the beginning of the debate, veteran Congress leaders like Purusottamdas Tandon, Govindaballav Panth, Chaitram Gidwani and Dr S Kichlu etc. placed their very convincing speeches against the motiom. Then Gandhi, setting aside all other speakers, spoke for 45 minutes supporting partition. The main theme of his deliberation was that, if Congress did not accept partition (1) other group of people or leaders would avail the opportunity and throw the Congress out of power and (2) a chaotic situation would prevail throughout the country. Many believe that, in the name of “chaotic condition”, he tacitly asked the Muslims to begin countrywide communal riot, if the Congress did not accept the partition. Till then, Sardar Patel was on the fence regarding the partition. But Gandhi’s speech turned him into a firm supporter of partition and he influenced other confused members to support the issue. In this way, Congress approved the partition issue (History of Freedom Movement in India, R C Majumdar, Vol-III, p-670). It may appear to many that, up to partition, Gandhi?s policy of nonviolence and Muslim appeasement in the name of secularism indeed harmed the country a lot. But a close look will reveal, it has done severe damage even after partition, or to speak the truth, it is causing serious damage even today. During independence, the Muslim population in undivided India was 23 per cent and this 23 per cent Muslims, got 32 per cent land area as Pakistan. The most appropriate step after partition was to carry out population transfer, or send the entire Muslim population of the divided India to Pakistan and bring all Hindus from Pakistan to India. This population transfer was included in the proposal for Pakistan by the Muslim League and after communal riot in Bihar, M A Jinnah requested the Government of India to carry out population transfer as early as possible. But Gandhi was hell bent not to undertake out the process and said that it was an impractical and fictitious proposal. Mountbatten, the then Governor General of India, was a staunch supporter of the said population exchange and advised Jawaharlal Nehru to do the same without delay. But Nehru submitted to the will of Gandhi and refrained from doing so. It is needless to say that, from the practical point of view, the said population exchange was urgently necessary and had it been carried out at that time, many problems of today would not have arisen. But due to the policy of Muslim appeasement of Gandhi, Muslims happily stayed back in this country, while Hindus had no alternative but to come to India as refugees or penniless beggars. Many of us perhaps do not know that due to strong opposition by Gandhi, “Vande Mataram” could not be accepted as the National Anthem of this country. In his early life, Gandhi had a great affinity for the song and while he was in South Africa, he wrote, “It is nobler in sentiment and sweeter than the songs of other nations. While other anthems contain sentiments that are derogatory to others, Vande Mataram is quite free from such faults. Its only aim is to arouse in us a sense of patriotism. It regards India as the mother and sings her praise.” But later on when he could discover that the Muslims dislike the song, he at once stopped singing or reciting the same at public places. Hence ultimately the “Jana Mana Gana” was selected as the National Anthem. During the debate over the matter in the Constituent Assembly, Nehru argued that Vande Mataram is not suitable to sing along with military band while Jana Gana Mana is free from this difficulty. In the present context, it should also be pointed out that Gandhi was not pleased with Tri Color, the National Flag of today’s India because the Muslims disliked the same. In this regard, Sri Nathuram Godse has narrated an incident in his “Why I Assassinated Gandhi”, which deserves to be noted in this context. During his Noakhali tour in 1946, a Congress worker put a tricolor over the temporary house where Gandhi was staying. One day an ordinary Muslim passer by objected to it and Gandhi immediately ordered his men to bring flag down. So, to please an ordinary Muslim, Gandhi did not hesitate to disgrace and dishonor the flag revered by millions of Congress workers. (pp-75-76). It should also be pointed out here that in his early life, Gandhi was very fond of the Hindi language and used to say that it was the only language having the potentiality to play the role of the national language. But to please the Muslim, he, later on tried his best to make Urdu, under the garb of Hindustani, the National Language of India. (Koenrad Elst, Gandhi and Godse, Voice of India, p89). A few months before the partition, when Hindu and Sikh refugees started to come from West Punjab in droves and crowding the refugee camps of Delhi, one day Gandhi visited a refugee camp and said, “Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo their (Hindus) existence. If they put all of us to the sword, we should court death bravely. We are destined to be born and die, then why need we feel gloomy over it? (speech delivered on April 6, 1947). In a similar occasion he said, “The few gentlemen from Rawalpindi who called upon me, asked me, What about those who still remain in Pakistan?? I asked, why they all came here (Delhi)? Why they did not die there? I still hold on to the belief that we should stick to the place where we happen to live, even if we are cruelly treated, and even killed. Let us die if the people kill us, but we should die bravely with the name of God on our tongue.? He also said, “Even if our men are killed, why should we feel angry with anybody? You should realize that even if they are killed, they have had a good and proper end? (speech delivered on November 23, 1947) In this context, Gandhi also said, “If those killed have died bravely, they have not lost anything but earned something.” They should not be afraid of death. After all, the killers will be none other than our Muslim brothers.” (Shri Nathuram Godse, Why I Assassinated Gandhi, p-92,93; as quoted by Koenrad Elst in Gandhi versus Godse, Voice of India, p-121). In another occasion when he was talking to a group of refugees, said, “If all the Punjabis were to die to the last man without killing (a single Muslim), Punjab will be immortal. Offer yourselves as nonviolent willing sacrifices.” (Collins and Lapierre, Freedom at Midnight, p-385). There is no doubt that if someone reads all these utterances of Gandhi, he would take him either a fool or a lunatic, but we are worshiping him as a Mahatma or a Great Soul. Gandhi believed that Muslims were brothers of the Hindus and hence they should never take arms or wage a war against the Muslims. He used to say that the foreign policy of independent India should always be respectful to Islam and the Muslims. Moreover, independent India should never invade a Muslim country like Arabia, Turkey etc. Gandhi also said that Rana Pratap, Guru Govinda Singh, Raja Ranjit Singh and Raja Shivaji were misguided patriots because they fought war with the Muslims. In his eyes Goerge Washington, Garibaldi, Kamal Pasha, D Valera, Lenin etc. were misguided patriots as they encouraged violence. Gandhi”s utterances painting respected Hindu heroes as misguided patriots aroused widespread commotion among the Hindus. Most importantly, calling Shivaji a misguided patriots put entire Maharastra on boil. Later on, Nehru could pacify their anger partially by begging apology on behalf of Gandhi. The Muslims whenever attack a Hindu settlement, they, in addition killing innocent people, setting their houses on fire, loot and burglary as their routine work, rape Hindu women. It is evident that, they commit all such oppressions according to the instructions of the Koran, revealed by Allah. During the Muslim rule that lasted for nearly 800 years, raping Hindu women became a common affair. To save their honour and sanctity from the lecherous Muslims, millions of Hindu women used to sacrifice their lives in flames. In the wake of partition most of the Hindu families became victims of Muslim oppression and raping Hindu women was an inseparable part of their attacks. When Hindus were butchered in Noakhali in 1946, thousands of Hindu women were raped by the Muslims. Many Hindus of this country do not know, what Gandhi, the Great Soul and the Apostle of nonviolence, thought about this behavior of the Muslims. In the 6th July, 1926, edition of the Navajivan, Gandhi wrote that ?He would kiss the feet of the (Muslim) violator of the modesty of a sister? (Mahatma Gandhi, D Keer, Popular Prakashan, p-473). Just before the partition, both Hindu and Sikh women were being raped by the Muslims in large numbers. Gandhi advised them that if a Muslim expressed his desire to rape a Hindu or a Sikh lady, she should never refuse him but cooperate with him. She should lie down like a dead with her tongue in between her teeth. Thus the rapist Muslim will be satisfied soon and sooner he leave her. (D Lapierre and L Collins, Freedom at Midnight, Vikas, 1997, p-479). From the above narrations, it becomes evident that Gandhi was never moved by the sufferings and miseries of the Hindus and, on the contrary, he used to shed tears for the Muslims. His idea of Hindu-Muslim amity was also extremely biased and prejudiced. Only Hindus are supposed to make all sacrifices for it and they should endure all the oppressions and heinous crimes of the Muslims without protest. And that was the basis of Gandhian nonviolence and secularism. So a Muslim called Khlifa Haji Mehmud of Lurwani, Sind, once said ?Gandhi was really a Mohammedan? (D Keer, ibid, p-237). It should be mentioned at the very outset that Gandhi never fought for India’s freedom. The reader should recall that Gandhi was brought from South Africa by the British to sabotage India?s freedom movement and hence it was not possible for him to fight the British for freedom. On the contrary, his intention was to prolong British rule in this country and to hoodwink the Hindus, he used to say that he was fighting for Swaraj. But his concept Swaraj was entirely mystical and vague and he used equate Swaraj with Ramrajya (or the rule of Lord Ram). According to him, termination of British rule was not at all necessary to establish Swaraj and Swaraj could function well even under the British rule. So he always opposed any move for demanding complete independence from the British rule and reproached the leaders like Subhash Chandra Bose and others because they were in favour of demanding independence, One of the basic preconditions of his Swaraj was the amity between the Hindus and the Muslims. It has been pointed out earlier that his idea of Hindu-Muslim amity was extremely biased and prejudiced ? Hindus were supposed to make every sacrifice and silently endure all the oppressions and crimes of the Muslims for the sake of this unity. It is well known that, for the sake of this Hindu-Muslim unity, Gandhi supported the KHILAFAT MOVEMENT, and extremely communal agitation launched by the fanatic and orthodox Muslim leaders, the Ali brothers. In his personal capacity, Gandhi once wanted to translate Spirit of Islam by Syed Amir Ali and Muhammad?s biography Life of Mahomet by Sir W Muir, to win the hearts of the Muslims. To appease them, he used to overlook and ignore even heinous crimes committed by the Muslims and considered ?Allahu Akbar? as a national slogan. He held the view that, Hindus should die but never should kill a Muslim. Many used to consider him a more devout Muslim than even Mohammad Ali Jinnah. To many. it would appear unbelievable that Gandhi used to advise the Amir of Afghanistan not to make peace with India and, on the contrary, instigated him to launch jihad against India or invade India. Moreover, he advised the Muslims of this country that, at such a situation, they should join the Afghan army and fight against India. He used to say that “Muslims are bullies and the Hindus are cowards” and advise the Muslims to be more cruel and violent during their attack on the Hindus. On the other hand, he suggested the Hindus to remain non-violent and not to defend their attack. He used to maintain the view that Hindus must not strike a Muslim even to save their lives. In the wake of partition, when the Muslims started slaughtering the innocent Hindus of Punjab, Sardar Vallabbhai Patel asked the Hindus to defend their lives. But that displeased Gandhi and he reproached Patel for his advice. In 1946, Gandhi did not go to Noakhali when the Hindus were being butchered there and he went there when the bloodshed was over. On the contrary, when the Hindus of Bihar started retaliating the Noakhali killings, he at once went to Bihar to save the Muslims.. Due to his extraordinary affection for the Muslims, many used to mention him as Mohammad Gandhi. To many, it would appear unbelievable that Gandhi used to advise the Hindus (for the sake of nonviolence) not to take part in any short of physical exercise and body-building activities as, in that case, it would have been difficult for the Muslims to oppress and massacre the physically strong Hindus. In fact, he closed most of the gymnasiums and other body-building centres in Gujarat. Gandhi strongly believed that Muslim rule was better for India than the British rule and in the wake of independence, he requested the British to transfer the power to the Muslims. At the same time, he started to look for an efficient Muslim emperor to rule this country. But doing so much for the Muslims, he remained a loathsome kafir in the eyes of the Muslims as Koran does not advocate Hindu-Muslim unity. On the contrary, Allah advises the Muslims to kill non-Muslim kafirs whenever and wherever they could be found (Koran ? 9:5). So the Muslim leader Mohammad Ali said, “In my eye, Gandhi is worse than a fallen Mussalman.” It has been pointed out earlier, what kind of vile and treacherous role Gandhi played during independence. After independence, both Gandhi and Nehru started vehemently to erase all the symbols that carry Hindu heritage. They declined to rename divided India as ?Hindustan? and started to mention it as non-Pakistan and ultimately they settled at ?Indian Republic.? But most of the countries in the world are known according to the name of the majority of the population, e.g. France, Germany, England, Ireland, Turkey, Afghanistan and so on. While commenting on Gandhi and his policy of Muslim appeasement, in the name of nonviolence, Sri Aurobinda once said, “India will be free to the extent it succeeds in shaking off the spell of Gandhism.” The present topic will remain incomplete if we do not discuss Gandhi’s deeds during the jihad launched by the Moplahs in Kerala in 1920, against the Hindus. At that time Kerala was a Princely state called Travancore under the Madras Presidency. Malabar was a small district of Travancore having a population of 3 million out of which 1 million were Muslims known as Moplahs, which was a corrupt Mollah. Historians believe that once upon a time Arab traders and their sailors and crews settled in the district, who married local women and grew into a sizable population of Muslims. These Moplahs were mostly illiterate and poor and nearly all of them used to earn their bread as agricultural labourers in the fields of well off Nambudri Brahmins. Like Muslims of other parts of the world, they were extremely cruel and used to declare jihad against the Hindus on flimsy ground and attack Hindus of the locality. From the beginning of the English rule, they launched 35 attacks within 1920 AD. In August, 1921, when Gandhi was touring Assam, Silhet and Silchar, Moplahs organized a severe and unprovoked attack on 20th August on the Hindus. Large scale slaughtering the Hindus, looting their properties, setting their houses on fire, raping Hindu women, desecration of Hindu temples and forceful conversion went on without any respite. The cruelty, brutality and horridness of the attack were far-reaching and incomprehensible. At that time, there were two options before the Hindus ? either conversion to Islam or death. A Muslim called Ali Musaliar was leading the attack. To bring the situation under control, British government declared martial law in the district but the rampage continued up to December. So the British had to prolong the martial law up to February 24, 1922. According to government records, 2300 Hindus were dead and 1650 Hindus were severely wounded, although the actual figures were more than double of the above account. In many occasions, Gandhi, the apostle of nonviolence, decried forceful conversion as a terribly violent act. But regarding the forceful conversion by the Moplahs, he preferred to remain mum. Moreover, he propagated the lie in Young India that the Moplahs, during the said rampage, had converted only a single Hindu to Islam. Most shamefully he described the killing of the innocent Hindus by the Moplahs as a heroic deed and he repeatedly said, ?Muslims are bullies and the Hindus are cowards.? Moreover, he used to say that the Moplahs were not guilty of killing the Hindus and, guilty were the Hindus who infuriated and provoked the Moplahs who had had no other option but to kill the Hindus. In addition to that, he asked the Hindus, for the sake of humanity, not to retaliate. There is no doubt that Gandhi, by safe guarding the Moplahs, instigated the Muslims to launch attacks on the Hindus in Punjab, Bengal and in other places in the wake of partition. More shamefully, Gandhi deplored the British administration for taking stern action to suppress the jihad by the Moplahs. Moreover, he declared Moplahs, who fought with the British army, as freedom fighters and said, ?The Moplahs are among the bravest in the land. They are god-fearing. Their bravery must be transformed into purest gold.??Thus ?He represented the perpetrators of vile deeds as god-fearing people! Was it not a travesty of religion to described men who murder and rape in the name of religion as god-fearing? ? Gandhi thus described the Moplah ferocity as the ignorant fanaticism of the Moplah brothers, and the Hindu mentality as cowardliness.? (Mahatma Gandhi, D Keer, ibid, pp-402). The matter did not end here. Due to perpetual insistence by Gandhi, the Moplah rogues, who died in police encounter, were later on declared martyrs of the freedom struggle and were allowed to receive allowance, like other freedom fighters, from the government exchequer, after independence and the practice is still in vogue. After the carnage by the Moplahs, Gandhi started raising money from common people to help, not the Hindu victims, but for the Muslim perpetrators. Following the tradition set by Gandhi, the so called secular politicians and secular media in Mumbai observe Moplah Day every year and take out procession and hold public meetings. Many believe that it would have been immensely beneficial for the country, had Gandhi been assassinated at that time. So, it is not difficult to understand that, had Gandhi been alive today, he would declare the killing of innocent Hindus in Kashmir, bombing the Hindu temples and killing innocent devotees, killing the Hindu pilgrims at Amarnath etc. as the bravery of the Muslims and cowardliness of Hindu victims. It also becomes evident that why today?s so called secular politicians and their media held the Hindu victims of Godhra responsible for their own death and remained silent about the Muslims criminals, as a policy of Muslim appeasement. And by following the foot-steps of Gandhi, these secular and leftist political leaders raised money for the Muslims of Gujarat, not for the Hindu victims of Godhra. Therefore many believe that Gandhi?s naked Muslim appeasement during the Moplah incident was enough to assassinate him in 1920s and that would have saved this country from many misfortunes, later on brought by Gandhi.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Gandhi, History, Islam, Hindus & Hinduism, India | Print | No Comments »

Most Expensive Dress!!

25. October 2009 by admin.

Chennai Silks , a textile unit has come up with one of its kind and it is seeking an unmistakable entry into the Guinness Book of World Records for being the most unique and expensive sari.

The exceptionally stunning sari is meticulously woven with 12 precious stones and metals to depict 11 of Raja Ravi Verma’s popular paintings. Explicitly projected is ‘Lady Musicians’, it is one of the painter’s very famous works that displays women belonging to diverse cultural backgrounds.

Besides, the border of the sari pictures 10 other paintings of the artist that pays tribute to the 20th century artist.
The best part of the sari being that the women in the paintings are intricately hand-woven and beautified with jewels of gold, diamond, platinum, silver, ruby, emerald, yellow sapphire, sapphire, cat’s eye, topaz, pearl and corals.

Already in the Limca Book of Records, this Rs.40-lakhs (approx.$80,000 USD) sari will be the first silk sari that required the use of 7,440 jacquard hooks and 66,794 cards during the weaving process. Moreover, a group of consummate workers took nearly 4,680 hours to complete the job.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Hindus & Hinduism, India | Print | No Comments »

Hinduism Studies and Dhimmitude in the American Academy

24. October 2009 by admin.

Pro-Islamic and anti-Hindu mindset known as dhimmitude (described more fully later) is prevalent in sections of the American academy. The case in point is the recent book by Dr. Wendy Doniger [1] , The Hindus: An Alternative History, The Penguin Press, 2009. Professor Goel reviews the book which has blatant anti hindu and pro islamic tone.

M. Lal Goel
Professor Emeritus of Political Science, www.uwf.edu/lgoel Doniger’s 779-page tome is laced with personal editorials, folksy turn of the phrase and funky wordplays. She has a large repertoire of Hindu mythological stories. She often narrates the most damning mythical story—Vedic, Puranic, folk, oral, vernacular—to demean, damage and disparage Hinduism. After building a caricature, she laments that fundamentalist Hindus (how many and how powerful are they?) are destroying the pluralistic, tolerant Hindu tradition. Why save such a vile, violent religion, as painted by the eminent professor? There is a contradiction here. This review focuses on Doniger’s discussion of Islamic incursions into India. Islam entered south India in the 7th Century with Arab merchants and traders. This was peaceful Islam. Later, Islam came to India as a predatory and a conquering force. Mohammad bin Qasim ravaged Sindh in 712. Mahmud Ghazni pillaged, looted and destroyed numerous Hindu temples around 1000 AD, but did not stay to rule. The Muslim rule begins with the Delhi Sultanate, approximately 1201 to 1526. The Sultanate gave place to the Mughal Empire, 1526-1707. Doniger makes the following dubious points regarding the Muslim imperial rule in India (1201-1707). Muslims marauders destroyed some Hindu temples, not many. Temple destruction was a long-standing Indian tradition. Hindus destroyed Buddhist and Jain stupas and rival Hindu temples and built upon the destroyed sites. Muslim invaders looted and destroyed Hindu temples because they had the power to do so. If Hindus had the power, they would do the same in reverse. The Jizya—the Muslim tax on non-Muslims—was for Hindu protection and a substitute for military service. Hindu “megalomania” for temple building in the Middle Ages was a positive result of Muslim demolition of some Hindu temples. The Hindu founders of the Vijayanagara Empire double-crossed their Muslim master in Delhi who had deputed them to secure the South. Hindus want Muslims and Christians to leave India for Hindustan is only for Hindus. Let us take each point in turn to examine Doniger’s mistaken views. Muslim invaders beginning with Mahmud Ghazni in 1000 CE looted, pillaged and destroyed not few but many Hindu and Buddhist temples. Muslim chroniclers describe the humiliation and utter desolation wrought by the Muslims on the kafirs (unbelievers). Alberuni, the Muslim scholar who accompanied Mahmud to India, describes one such event: “Mathura, the holy city of Krishna, was the next victim. In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted. The Sultan was of the opinion that 200 years would have been required to build it. The idols included ‘five of red gold, each five yards high,’ with eyes formed of priceless jewels. . . The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and leveled with the ground. Thus perished works of art which must have been among the noblest monuments of ancient India.” [2] At the destruction of another temple, Somnath, it is estimated that 50,000 were massacred. The fabulous booty of gold, women and children was divided according to Islamic tradition—the Sultan getting the royal fifth, the cavalry man getting twice as much as the foot soldier. Hundreds of Hindu and Buddhist shrines were destroyed. Dr. Doniger asserts that Hindus too persecuted minority Jain and Buddhist religions and destroyed their shrines. She narrates the now discarded story about the impaling of Jains at the hands of Hindu rulers in the Tamil country. Then she says that “there is no evidence that any of this actually happened, other than the story.” (p 365). Then why narrate the story? Hindu sectarian violence pales in comparison to what happened either in Europe or in the Middle East. The truth is that both Jainism and Buddhism were integrated into Hinduism’s pluralistic tradition. The Buddha is accepted as one of the Hindu Avatars (God in human form). Exquisite Jain temples at Mt Abu at the border of Gujarat and Rajasthan built around 1000 CE survive in the region dominated by Hindu Rajput rulers, falsifying notions of Hindu carnage of Jain temples. Doniger says that Hindus would do the same to Muslims if they had the power to do so. Hindus did come to power after the death of Emperor Aurangzeb in 1707, when the Mughal rule rapidly declined. The Marathas were the strongest power in Western and Southern India in the 18th and 19th centuries, as the Sikhs were in North India. There is no account of large scale demolition and looting of Muslim places of worship either by the Marathas or the Sikhs. If a copy of the Quran fell into the hands of Maharaja Shivaji during a campaign, the same would be passed on to a Muslim rather than being burned. Contrary to what Doniger says, Jizya is a long held Muslim tradition. It was levied to begin with on the defeated Christians and Jews, the People of the Book, as a price for the cessation of Jihad. Hindus, not being one of the People of the Book, did not deserve to live by paying the special tax. If defeated in battle, their only option was Islam or death. This was the position taken by the Islamic clergy. Unlike the clergy, however, the Muslim governors were practical men. If they had killed the Hindus en masse for failing to adopt Islam, who would build their palaces, fill their harems, cut their wood and hue their water? [3] Doniger argues that Hindu ‘megalomania’ for temple building resulted from Muslim destruction of some Hindu temples. In other words, because the Muslims destroyed some of the Hindu temples, the Hindus went on a building spree. If Doniger’s argument is accepted, Hindus should thank Islamic marauders for looting and desecrating their shrines. The truth is that in northern India which experienced 500 years of Islamic rule (1201-1707), few historical temples of any beauty remain. In contrast, temple architecture of some beauty does survive in southern India, the region that escaped long Muslim occupation. That the Hindu founders of the Vijayanagara dynasty in the South double-crossed their Muslim master in Delhi is one among the innumerable editorial negative portrayal of Hindu character. One may ask: why wouldn’t a slave double cross his oppressor? The view that Muslims and Christians should leave India is not one held by most Hindus, only by a small minority on the extreme fringes. Muslim population has increased in India from about 9 percent at the time of Independence to about 13 percent now (1947-2009). In contrast, in Pakistan, Hindu population has declined and now constitutes less than one percent. In Muslim Bangladesh in the same period the Hindu population has declined from 29 percent to less than 10 percent. Muslims hold important positions in government and business in contemporary India, which is 83 pct Hindu. The richest person in India has been a Muslim, Premji; the most popular film stars are Muslim; Christian and Muslim chief ministers and governors head several of the states. The single most important leader in India is an Italian-born woman Sonya Gandhi and the Prime Minister is a Sikh, Dr. Manmohan Singh. The past President APJ Kalam was a Muslim and before that K R Narayanan, a lower caste. In Federal and State civil service, 50 percent of the jobs are reserved for backward classes and Untouchable, in order to compensate for past discrimination. India has moved. Let us look more closely. Doniger describes the invasion of Sindh by Arab soldier of fortune Muhammad bin Qasim as follows: Qasim invaded Sindh in 713. The terms of surrender included a promise of guarantee of the safety of Hindu and Buddhist establishments. “Hindus and Buddhists were allowed to govern themselves in matters of religion and law.” Qasim “kept his promises.” The non-Muslims were not treated as kafirs. Jizya was imposed but only as a substitute for military service for their “protection.” He brought Muslim teachers and mosques into the subcontinent. (paraphrased) From Doniger’s assessment, Qasim should be regarded as a blessing. Contrast Doniger’s description with that written by Andrew Bostom in “The Legacy of Islamic Jihad in India.” [4] The Muslim chroniclers al-Baladhuri (in Kitab Futuh al-Buldan) and al-Kufi (in the Chachnama) include enough isolated details to establish the overall nature of the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 C.E. . . . Baladhuri, for example, records that following the capture of Debal, Muhammad b. Qasim earmarked a section of the city exclusively for Muslims, constructed a mosque, and established four thousand colonists there. The conquest of Debal had been a brutal affair. . . Despite appeals for mercy from the besieged Indians (who opened their gates after the Muslims scaled the fort walls), Muhammad b. Qasim declared that he had no orders (i.e., from his superior al-Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq) to spare the inhabitants, and thus for three days a ruthless and indiscriminate slaughter ensued. In the aftermath, the local temple was defiled, and “700 beautiful females who had sought for shelter there, were all captured.” Distinguished historian R. C. Majumdar describes the capture of the royal Fort and its tragic outcome: Muhammad massacred 6,000 fighting men who were found in the fort, and their followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken prisoners. Sixty thousand slaves, including 30 young ladies of royal blood, were sent to Hajjaj, along with the head of Dahar [the Hindu ruler]. We can now well understand why the capture of a fort by the Muslim forces was followed by the terrible jauhar ceremony (in which females threw themselves in fire kindled by themselves), the earliest recorded instance of which is found in the Chachnama. Cited in Bostom. Doniger extensively footnotes Romila Thapar, John Keay, Anne Schimmel and A. K. Ramanujan as her sources for Islamic history, providing an impression of meticulous scholarship. Missing are works of the distinguished historians: Jadunath Sarkar, R. C. Majumdar, A. L. Srivastava, Vincent Smith, and Ram Swarup. Doniger writes at page 458: when Muslim royal women first came to India, they did not rigidly keep to purdah (the veiling and seclusion of women). They picked the more strict form of purdah from contact with the Hindu Rajput women. Doniger finds much to praise in Muslim women during this period: some knew several languages; others wrote poetry; some managed vast estates; others set up “feminist” republics within female quarters (harems); some debated fine points on religion; some even joined in drinking parties (chapters 16, 20). Such descriptions are patently negated by distinguished historians. See The Mughal Harem (1988) by K S Lal, available free on the Internet. If Hinduism is the source of strict purdah among Muslim women, as Doniger contends, how does one explain the strict veiling of women in the Middle East, a region far removed from Hindu influence? Or, the absence of it in southern India, a region that escaped Islamic domination? Doniger writes at page 627, “the Vedic reverence for violence flowered in the slaughters that followed Partition.” And, Gandhi’s nonviolence succeeded against the British. But it failed against the tenaciously held Hindu ideal of violence that had grip on the real emotions of the masses. What is one to make of these weighty pronouncements uttered in all seriousness by the author? These are an expression of the hurt feelings on the part of a scholar. While discussing the Hindu epic Ramayana in London in 2003, Doniger put forth her usual gloss: that Lakshman had the hots for his brother Rama’s wife Sita, and that sexually-charged Sita reciprocated these feelings. An irate Hindu threw an egg at her and conveniently missed it. This incident is her cause célèbre. DHIMMITUDE Doniger’s uncritical review of the Islamic marauding raids in India (712-1200) and later the Islamic empire (1201-1707) suggests dhimmitude. The concepts of dhimmi and dhimmitude were developed by the Egyptian born Jewish woman writer, Bat Ye’or (Daughter of the Nile), who fled Egypt in 1958 in the wake of Jewish persecution following the Suez Canal crisis. Her meticulous research puts to rest the myth of peaceful expansion of Islamic power in the countries of Middle East and Eastern Europe. [5] Dhimmitude is a state of fear and insecurity on the part of infidels who are required to accept a condition of humiliation. It is characterized by the victim’s siding with his oppressors, by the moral justification the victim provides for his oppressors’ hateful behavior. The Dhimmi loses the possibility of revolt because revolt arises from a sense of injustice. He loathes himself in order to praise his oppressors. Dhimmis lived under some 20 disabilities. Dhimmis were prohibited to build new places of worship, to ring church bells or take out processions, to ride horses or camels (they could ride donkeys), to marry a Muslim woman, to wear decorative clothing, to own a Muslim as a slave or to testify against a Muslim in a court of law. Ye’or believes that the dhimmi condition can only be understood in the context of Jihad. Jihad embodies all the Islamic laws and customs applied over a millennium on the vanquished population, Jews and Christians, in the countries conquered by jihad and therefore Islamized. She believes that dhimmitude was once the attribute of defeated Christian and Jewish communities under Islam. Now it is a feature of much of the Western world, Europe and America. Her theory of dhimmitude applies to many Hindus in India. Whereas dhimmitude in previous centuries resulted from real-life powerlessness and humiliation, modern dhimmi syndrome results from some combination of the following. The corrupting power of oil money to influence think tanks, lobbyists and academic institutions. De-Christianizing of Europe. It is now also happening in the U.S. See Pew research reports. Guilt feelings in the West on account of the Crusades to liberate the Holy Land (1095-1291). Multiculturalism: the belief that all cultural practices and ways of life are equally valid. Violence by radical Muslims is on account of being poor and exploited by colonial hegemony. Islam provided the West its basis for advancement in math and science. The rising number of Muslim populations in Europe and America. The rising level of alienation from one’s own culture in the West. Doniger’s inflammatory book on the Hindus makes sense only in the light of a larger global trend—a trend that seeks to re-package Islamic history as a force for tolerance and progress. Doniger is not alone in holding such views. Dhimmi attitudes of subservience have entered the Western academy, and from there into journalism, school textbooks and political discourse. One must not criticize Islam. For, to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today. To do so would endanger chances for peace and rapprochement between civilizations all too ready to clash. See, The field of Middle East Studies in the U.S. is now controlled by pro-Middle East professors, according to Martin Kramer, editor of the Middle Eastern Quarterly. “The crucial turning point occurred in the late 1970s when Middle East studies centers, under /Edward/ Said’s influence, began to show a preference for ideology over empirical fact and, fearing the taint of the ‘orientalist’ bias, began to prefer academic appointments of native-born Middle Easterners over qualified Western-born students,” contends Kramer. The book is summarized at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_17_119/ai_90989239/.>
In contrast, the field of Hinduism studies is controlled by non-Hindus and anti-Hindus, with some notable exceptions of course. Hindu gods and goddesses are lampooned and denigrated. Hindu saints are described as sexual perverts and India in danger of being run over by Hindu fundamentalists. In these portrayals, Doniger is joined by Martha Nussbaum, Paul Courtright, Jeffrey Kripal, Sarah Caldwell, Stanley Kurtz, to name a few of the leading academicians. For a critique of the American academy, see Rajiv Malhotra at www.sulekha.com, and a 2007 book titled, Invading the Sacred. [6] Doniger is quite harsh on the British record in India (1757-1947). She compares the British argument that they brought trains and drains to India to Hitler’s argument that he built the Autobahn in Germany (p. 583). Censuring Britain and giving a pass to the more draconian Islamic imperialism in India fits with the dhimmi attitude that I have described. Consequently, attitudes of concession and appeasement are on the rise. A reversal of language occurs. Jihad is called ‘struggle within’ or struggle for liberation. Dhimmitude is called tolerance. Jizya is called protection. Tony Blair declares Islam is a religion of peace and that the terrorists are not real Muslims. Parts of London have been ceded to the control of radical mullahs. Sharia arbitration courts are now part of the British legal system. Melanie Phillips tells that London is becoming Londonistan. [7] Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe. The destruction of life and property caused by Islamic extremists in the last thirty years is simply horrendous. Of course, distinction must be made between moderate Muslims and radicals who wish to bring back the 7th century version of Islam. The British helped abolish the horrible practice of Suttee (widow burning) in India in the 19th century. At its peak in the 19th century, the practice of Suttee claimed the lives of 500 to 600 women a year in India. The honor killing of women, genital mutilation, and the caning of girls for minor sexual impropriety raises only a limited protest in the 21st century. Amid the rising level of alienation, multiculturalism and the feelings of guilt in the West, the moral compass has been lost. politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in History, Hindus & Hinduism, India | Print | No Comments »

Hindu roots of Afganistan

18. October 2009 by admin.

How many Indians even know today about the Hindu rulers of Afghanistan? How many of them have read about how the Hindu kings fought the Muslim invaders tooth and nail to save Afghanistan? Their battles and conduct recieved high praises even from their Muslim adversaries. We Hindus of India owe a debt to them. The least we can do to repay this debt is to tell our children their story.

Most westerners would be ignorant of the fact that Afghanistan was once a Hindu majority country and the most famous ruling dynasty of Afghanistan is called the Hindushahi Dynasty.

Here is a list of the famous Hindushahi kings who ruled Afghanistan:

Khingala of Kapisa (7th c.)
Patoladeva alias Navasurendradiyta Nandin of Gilgit (6-7th c.)
Srideva alias Surendra Vikrmadiyta Nandin of Gilgit (6-7th c.)
Patoladeva alias Vajraditya Nandin of Gilgit (6-7th c.)
Kallar alias Lalliya (c. 890-895) of Kabul
Kamaluka (895-921)
Bhima (921-964), son of Kamaluka
Ishtthapala (?)
Jayapala (964-1001)
Anandapala (1001-c.1010), son of Jayapala
Trilochanapala (ruled c.1010-1021-22; assassinated by mutinous troops)
Bhímapála (died in 1022-1026)

Here is a short story about defence of Kabul and Zabul by the Hindu kings, narrated by Sita Ram Goel:

HEROIC DEFENCE OF KABUL AND ZABUL

The same story was repeated by the Hindu kingdoms of Kabul (Kapisa) and Zabul (Jabal) which lay to the north-west of Sindh, and which the Islamic armies had started attacking soon after they annexed Khorasan in AD 643. It was in AD 650 that the first Islamic army penetrated deep into Zabul by way of Seistan, which at that time was a part of India territorially as well as culturally. The struggle was grim and prolonged. The Islamic army suffered heavy losses. In the final round, the invader was defeated and driven out.
Another attack followed in AD 653. The Arab general, Abdul Rahman, was able to conquer Zabul and levy tribute from Kabul. The king of Kabul, however, proved desultory in paying regularly what the Arabs thought to be their due. Finally, another Arab general, Yazid ibn Ziyad who had been the governor of Seistan for some time, attempted retribution in AD 683. He was killed by the Hindus, and his army was put to flight with great slaughter. The Arabs lost Seistan also, and had to pay 5,00,000 dirhams to get one of their generals, Abu Ubaida, released.
But the Arabs, inspired as they were by an imperialist ideology, did not give up. They recovered Seistan some time before AD 692. Its new governor, Abdullah, invaded Kabul. The Hindus trapped the Arab army in the mountain passes after allowing it to advance unopposed for some distance. Abdullah agreed to cease hostilities, and the king of Kabul agreed to renew payment of an annual tribute. But the treaty was denounced by the Caliph who dismissed Abdullah. The war against Kabul was renewed in AD 695 when Hajjaj became the governor of Iraq. He sent an army under Ubaidullah, the new governor of Seistan. Ubaidullah was defeated and forced to retreat after leaving his three sons as hostages and promising that �he shall not fight as long as he was governor�.15 Once again, the treaty was denounced by the Caliph, and another general, Shuraih, tried to advance upon Kabul. He was killed by the Hindus, and his army suffered huge losses as it retreated through the desert of Bust. Poor Ubaidullah died of grief. That was the third round won by the Hindu kingdom of Kabul.
In the next round, Hajjaj commissioned Abdul Rahman once again. He made some conquests but could not consolidate his hold. Hajjaj threatened to supersede him. Abdul Rahman revolted and entered into a treaty with the Hindu king to �carry arms against his master�.16 The treaty did not work, and Abdul Rahman committed suicide. The Hindu king, however, continued the war. Masudi, the Arab historian, �makes mention of a prince in the valley of the Indus who after having subjugated Eastern Persia, advanced to the bank of the Tigris and Euphrates�.17 Hajjaj had to make peace according to which the Hindu king was entitled to keep his kingdom in exchange for an annual tribute. The Hindu king, however, stopped payment in the reign of Caliph Sulayman (AD 715-717). Some attempts to force him into submission were made in the reign of Caliph Al-Mansur (AD 745-775). But they met with only partial success, and we find the Hindus ruling over Kabul and Zabul in the year AD 867. The Arabs had failed once again to conquer finally another small Hindu principality, in spite of their being the mightiest power on earth. The struggle had lasted for more than two hundred years.
The kingdom of Kabul suffered a temporary eclipse in AD 870 but not on account of the Arabs, nor as a result of a clash of arms. The Turkish adventurer, Yaqub bin Layth, �who started his career as a robber in Seistan and later on founded the Saffarid dynasty of Persia�, sent a message to the king of Kabul that he wanted to come and pay his homage. The king was deceived into welcoming Yaqub and a band of the latter�s armed followers in the court at Kabul. Yaqub �bowed his head as if to do homage but he raised the lance and thrust it into the back of Rusal so that he died on the spot�. A Turkish army then invaded the Hindu kingdoms of both Kabul and Zabul. The king of Zabul was killed in the battle, and the population was converted to Islam by force. That was a permanent loss to India. But the succeeding Hindu king of Kabul who had meanwhile transferred his capital to Udbhandapur on the Indus, recovered Kabul after the Saffarid dynasty declined. Masudi who visited the Indus Valley in AD 915 �designates the prince who ruled at Kabul by the same title as he held when the Arabs penetrated for the first time into this region�.18
The Hindus lost Kabul for good only in the closing decade of the 10th century. In AD 963 Alaptigin, a Turkish slave of the succeeding Samanid dynasty, had been able to establish an independent Muslim principality in Kabul with his seat at Ghazni. It was his general and successor, Subuktigin, who conquered Kabul after a struggle spread over two decades. The Hindus under king Jayapala of Udbhandapur made a bold bid to recapture Kabul in AD 986-987. A confederate Hindu army to which the Rajas of Delhi, Ajmer, Kalinjar and Kanauj has contributed troops and money, advanced into the heartland of the Islamic kingdom of Ghazni. �According to Utbi, the battle lasted several days and the warriors of Subuktigin, including prince Mahmood, were �reduced to despair.� But a snow-storm and rains upset the plans of Jayapala who opened negotiations for peace. He sent the following message to Subuktigin: �You have heard and know the nobleness of Indians – they fear not death or destruction� In affairs of honour and renown we would place ourselves upon the fire like roast meat, and upon the dagger like the sunrays.��19 But the peace thus concluded proved temporary. The Muslims resumed the offensive and the Hindus were defeated and driven out of Kabul. Dr. Mishra concludes with the comment that Jayapala “was perhaps the last Indian ruler to show such spirit of aggression, so sadly lacking in later Rajput kings.”

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Afganistan, History, Hindus & Hinduism, India | Print | No Comments »

Islam

Archive for the Hindus & Hinduism Category

How Christian Evangelists Target Hindu American Students

Bhagvata Purana-Skandha 1

Outrageous Portrayal of Hindu Gods

Protest against Nina Paley’s outright denigration of The Ramayan

Introduction

Revolting Scenes from the Film

Spiritual fact:

Spiritual fact:

Spiritual fact:

Spiritual fact:

Spiritual fact:

Spiritual fact:

Spiritual fact:

Spiritual fact:

Our fellow Hindu Brothers and Sisters, lodge your protest !

How To Remove Common Misconceptions About Hinduism

Hinduism Indian Religion Hindu Gods & Philosophies

The myth of “1000 years of Hindu slavery”

Gandhi’s Muslim Appeasement

Most Expensive Dress!!

Hinduism Studies and Dhimmitude in the American Academy

Hindu roots of Afganistan