Sanitising Hindu History is not enough

[Das ka das]

thats because hindus are half vegetarian and therefore are cowards---another reason for them to convert to christianity . at least it will inject some manliness in them .

30 percent of Hindus are vegetarian. Why dint you convert to Christianity or rather Islam which is a more manly religion than Christianity.

 

[nrj]

This statistic is from the book 'Invading the Sacred' by Rajiv Malhota and others.

Does not answer question, why Hindus could not reform or progress when europeans did ?

Why they needed British to put ban on Sati?

 

[civfanatic]

Yeah, are you sure it is 10%? And not 9% or 10.12% ? Wonder who made the statistics.

And what stopped rest of Hindus to put end on such moronic practice? Oh ya, they were waiting for Brits to take over & implement ban.

Truth hurts. Nobody is spewing venom. Only highlighting the regressive practices in dark ages which kept India behind western civilization. And this denial of own mistakes is classic assuring that we don't learn.

The lack of introspection among many Indians today is quite worrying. We need to come to terms with the history of our civilization, including its failures. History should not be about glorifying the past, but learning from it. We should strive to create a better India in the future, while being cognizant of the past.

 

[nrj]

The lack of introspection among many Indians today is quite worrying. We need to come to terms with the history of our civilization, including its failures. History should not be about glorifying the past, but learning from it. We should strive to create a better India in the future, while being cognizant of the past.

Denial of mistake is worse. For anyone to move ahead, they must first accept flaws. Glorification of history out of insecurity only to drive egoism is not gonna take us anywhere. And what land of law reformed hinduism or India? There are still shameful cases of honor killings or girl child murders. And we talk of gender equality. Indian society is miles away from modern reforms which can fuel Indian reemergence.

 

[hit&run]

So the credit to reform Hinduism goes to Indian State in 1947 ?

Absolutely, when someone pushes you to the corner all the references has to be collected not to mention the constitution embodies the will of the people of the land.

What were we doing till then? What were we doing till British took over?

What you wanted Hindus to do or we are too much buried into propaganda and exaggeration?

When ever we got power their was prosperity. There was not even a single beggar on street when first Europeans visited India. It explains how India's social well being was behaving. Heck up to Aurangzeb the our economy was exponentially higher then rest of the world. We only failed to invent industrial revolution.

How could Europeans technologically progress when we thought burning our own women is better activity than inventing steam engine ?

Sati pratha is most heinous crime, but I will tell you a fact so that you can weigh that it wasn't that prevalent.

One Gotra has only one sati, in my gotra for last 800 year there is no Sati.

 

[hit&run]

Denial of mistake is worse. For anyone to move ahead, they must first accept flaws. Glorification of history out of insecurity only to drive egoism is not gonna take us anywhere. And what land of law reformed hinduism or India? There are still shameful cases of honor killings or girl child murders. And we talk of gender equality. Indian society is miles away from modern reforms which can fuel Indian reemergence.

You can not held all the religion responsible for an individuals crime.
................................................................................................................................................

I would like to mention one more point on the tempo of this thread that after targeting specific casts and Hinduism now people are restored to deliver emotional lectures. I call everyone out to stop preaching, Its getting nauseating.

 

[gokussj9]

that is all theory . in reality caste is determined by birth and it has become very rigid .

True, caste system has become very rigid. All I wanted to point out that people are not really
following the scriptures hence all the anomalies. It is the goon so called fat caste brahmanas
who are misusing their birth tag and making money. In fact if you were to read the 13,14 and 18 chapters,
it would become clear that it is extremely difficult to be a pure brahmana in this age and hence "kalau sudra sambhavah".

PS: Some sampradayas do follow these principles to this date and I have had the fortune to
have their association. But again, they are very few in number and do not publicize their
practices at all.

 

[nrj]

Absolutely, when someone pushes you to the corner all the references has to be collected not to mention the constitution embodies the will of the people of the land.
What you wanted Hindus to do or we are too much buried into propaganda and exaggeration?

When ever we got power their was prosperity. There was not even a single beggar on street when first Europeans visited India. It explains how India's social well being was behaving. Heck up to Aurangzeb the our economy was exponentially higher then rest of the world. We only failed to invent industrial revolution.

Sati pratha is most heinous crime, but I will tell you a fact so that you can weigh that it wasn't that prevalent.

One Gotra has only one sati, in my gotra for last 800 year there is no Sati.

Moot point is, we were engaged in regressive practices when Europeans moved ahead.

 

[nrj]

You can not held all the religion responsible for an individuals crime.
................................................................................................................................................

I would like to mention one more point on the tempo of this thread that after targeting specific casts and Hinduism now people are restored to deliver emotional lectures.

Organized practices are not individual crime. Heck, it was not even recognized as crime but norm until someone woke us up to witness how much humans have evolved.

I call everyone out to stop preaching, Its getting nauseating.

Get fresh air if you want.

 

[hit&run]

You are not even arguing any points anymore. You are just posting for the sake of posting.

I won't waste my time unnecessarily. You are free to believe whatever you want.

You can cower out from this discourse if you want. I have exposed you fallacy in argument, boiler plate accusations and flip flops.

I am older then you with good qualification, I know what you have been saying.

You claimed Hindus haven't reformed, you gave examples of Europe but conveniently missed Indian constitution. Now you started preaching on how Indians should be not justifying history etc.

Either you talk on specific point or not give lecture on your personal Idealism. Its not imperative since you are moderator that people should see through your prism. There is no scientific reasoning that your POV is beneficial than my POV.

 

[Known_Unknown]

My question was why the Christians were able to reform their society, when the Hindus failed to do so. Many Hindus like to claim that Hindu society was much more liberal and inviting to change than that of Abrahamic religions, who have a reputation of being rigid and suppressing any sign of heresy or dissent. If so, how were Christian Western Europeans - the followers of an Abrahamic religion - able to create a rational, scientific civilization that far surpassed what the Hindus or any one else had created up to that point?

The modern Hindu "reform" movements such as the Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj all emerged in the 19th century in the context of European colonialism. The Hindus were shocked at their perceived backwardness in comparison to the Europeans, not only technologically but also (in their minds) socially and intellectually, and this prompted change among them. It was only during this time that practices such as sati and the caste system were formally denounced by Hindus. It was also during this time that many Hindu texts were re-interpreted, with the view of making them more acceptable by European standards. Ancient Indian sexual ethics and morals, for example, were discarded by Hindus as being "primitive" and "shameful", and Victorian morals were embraced. Gradually, these changes began shaping Hindu society as a whole.

The simple answer is that the Renaissance took place in Europe in an environment which encouraged patronage of the arts, science, culture, medicine, trade, commerce etc. While the Church may have persecuted individuals for what they considered to be "blasphemous" ideas, these were isolated instances and did not result in the wholesale persecution of classes or communities of people.

In India on the other hand, under Muslim rule, the majority faith was suppressed, their places of worship routinely destroyed, and the adherents persecuted. There was no state patronage for anything-the rulers saw themselves as separate and superior to the vast heathen population under them which was only supposed to be converted, taxed into extinction or killed.

In the face of overwhelming difficulties, the Brahmins became even more deeply orthodox, which often happens in such cases (e.g Muslims abroad being more Islamist/radicalized than those in the mother country). This had a negative impact on innovation and the free flow of new ideas.

How else can you explain the period around 500 BC to 600-700 AD, which is considered to be the Golden Age of Indian civilization, and which abruptly came to an end after the consolidation of Islamic regimes in North India?

Here's a great documentary series on how the Renaissance took place in Europe. Surely you will agree after watching that conditions in India (economic, social, political) were not at all conducive for such a transformation at that time.

 

[KS]

Amount of self-hate spewed by pseudo-analysts is nauseating.

 

[hit&run]

Organized practices are not individual crime. Heck, it was not even recognized as crime but normal until someone woke us up to witness how much humans have evolved.

Same kind of crimes were happening in Europe under the umbrella of Christianity and same crimes were happening in other religions as well. The only difference between Hinduism and Christianity is the time difference. They reformed faster as they became better political entity, then their need for resources made them strive to invent thus leading them to more organised and scientific society.

Religion offers reforms and at the same time mal-practices.

Religions and civilizations those who are permeable let other school of thoughts filter in and out, the flow is dictated by dominance of one culture over other and its proximity.

There were times when Indian civilization positively effected other civilizations even far. Reforms are contagious. When European arrived in India they were already done away with those crimes back home, when they came into power they ridiculed it and made laws against it. Then there was role of Hindus who themselves were against it to make it effective.

Sooner or later as the world progressed into new ages these mal-practices were eventually going to be exposed and force stopped with or without European ruling our lands. I have proved as others were self contradicting that there is always a great scope in Hinduism to improve, west offered a better political system. Unfortunately there are few example to compare because they ruled most of the globe thus they dictated laws of the lands. Today's Hindus neither need to crib about it nor be defensive about natural course of things.

Hindus of India were to follow the suit and reform in any case.

 

[nrj]

Same kind of crimes were happening in Europe under the umbrella of Christianity and same crimes were happening in other religions as well. The only difference between Hinduism and Christianity is the time difference. They reformed faster as they became better political entity, then their need for resources made them strive to invent thus leading them to more organised and scientific society.

Religion offers reforms and at the same time mal-practices.

Religions and civilizations those who are permeable let other school of thoughts filter in and out, the flow is dictated by dominance of one culture over other and its proximity.

There were times when Indian civilization positively effected other civilizations even far. Reforms are contagious. When European arrived in India they were already done away with those crimes back home, when they came into power they ridiculed it and made laws against it. Then there was role of Hindus who themselves were against it to make it effective.

Sooner or later as the world progressed into new ages these mal-practices were eventually going to be exposed and force stopped with or without European ruling our lands. I have proved as others were self contradicting that there is always a great scope in Hinduism to improve, west offered a better political system. Unfortunately there are few example to compare because they ruled most of the globe thus they dictated laws of the lands. Today's Hindus neither need to crib about it nor be defensive about natural course of things.

Hindus of India were to follow the suit and reform in any case.

I am not glorifying Christians.

Fact is and will be that Indians by large needed westerners to reform themselves. And middle century darkness in India imparted under name of religion kept us backward and underdeveloped. Europeans progressed, Indians did not. We were happy with self-convincing lies and non-sense, regressive practices.

 

[nrj]

And there is every reason to crib about dark centuries in India. It took us behind flow of evolution. Social forces did not concentrate of scientific and technological advantages, rather engaged themselves foolish practices which kept dividing society. We did put ourselves at disadvantage, knowingly. That is reason we could not be part of progressive mainstream movement in modern era. That is why we had no scientific prowess & lagged behind westerners in becoming developing society let alone exercising influence across geographies.

And independence has not guaranteed us social reform. If Hinduism and other subcontinental religions did really reform then why do we still have vote bank politics, caste hatred?? There is indeed need to take holistic view & introspect.

 

[civfanatic]

The simple answer is that the Renaissance took place in Europe in an environment which encouraged patronage of the arts, science, culture, medicine, trade, commerce etc. While the Church may have persecuted individuals for what they considered to be "blasphemous" ideas, these were isolated instances and did not result in the wholesale persecution of classes or communities of people.

In India on the other hand, under Muslim rule, the majority faith was suppressed, their places of worship routinely destroyed, and the adherents persecuted. There was no state patronage for anything-the rulers saw themselves as separate and superior to the vast heathen population under them which was only supposed to be converted, taxed into extinction or killed.

In the face of overwhelming difficulties, the Brahmins became even more deeply orthodox, which often happens in such cases (e.g Muslims abroad being more Islamist/radicalized than those in the mother country). This had a negative impact on innovation and the free flow of new ideas.

I'm not sure what you mean by "there was no state patronage for anything". There was plenty of art, architecture, science, culture, medicine, trade, and commerce under "Muslim" rule, and this is well-attested. The degree of economic prosperity enjoyed by India during the Middle Ages was even greater than it was in ancient times. The Mughal Empire was the richest state in the world in terms of sheer revenue (100 million silver rupees per annum at the height of Akbar's reign).

Anyway, I am not really sure what the presence of wealth and commerce has to do with social reform. A society or state can be wealthy and still be narrow-minded and backwards (China in the 18th century is a good example). There were "reformist" movements even during the period of Islamic rule, most notably Sikhism, but these did not change Hindu society as a whole. Moreover, why did those parts of India that were outside of Muslim rule, such as Kerala, still fail to reform themselves? The Muslims certainly cannot be blamed in that case.

How else can you explain the period around 500 BC to 600-700 AD, which is considered to be the Golden Age of Indian civilization, and which abruptly came to an end after the consolidation of Islamic regimes in North India?

The period from 500 B.C.E. to 700 C.E. is vast, and not all parts of that timeline were uniformly "golden". Anyway, in what way did India become "less golden" in the Middle Ages, compared to what it was before?

 

[hit&run]

I am not glorifying Christians.

Fact is and will be that Indians by large needed westerners to reform themselves. And middle century darkness in India imparted under name of religion kept us backward and underdeveloped. Europeans progressed, Indians did not. We were happy with self-convincing lies and non-sense, regressive practices.

Religion is shaped by law of the land.

Hinduism fortunately or unfortunately is too autonomous and introvert to make changes/reforms visible and fast regardless of its scope to reform fast.

We lost the plot only because of Industrial age they invested in. The leap is too big for us to cover even today. Did we lost that race because of our religion, I would say It would be too simplistic to blame.

Exaggeration that Hinduism is a primitive religion is in fashions but it does not explain how we were able to have most sophisticated states ruled by kings having massive armies and resources and an economy worth billions of dollars just before Europeans sailed their boats in IOR.

On castism, I know its very rigid but somehow I believe only with growing economy and more control of the state/law its bad effects will fade away like it might have been the case when we were prosperous at many instances. It's 60 years and counting I think we have done much and can do more then this in near future but I don't think it will go away completely, but I wish it should.

 

[nrj]

Religion is shaped by law of the land.

Hinduism fortunately or unfortunately is too autonomous and introvert to make changes/reforms visible and fast regardless of its scope to reform fast.

We lost the plot only because of Industrial age they invested in. The leap is too big for us to cover even today. Did we lost that race because of our religion, I would say It would be too simplistic to blame.

Exaggeration that Hinduism is a primitive religion is in fashions but it does not explain how we were able to have most sophisticated states ruled by kings having massive armies and resources and an economy worth billions of dollars just before Europeans sailed their boats in IOR.

On castism, I know its very rigid but somehow I believe only with growing economy and more control of the state/law its bad effects will fade away like it might have been the case when we were prosperous at many instances. It's 60 years and counting I think we have done much and can do more then this in near future but I don't think it will go away completely, but I wish it should.

I blame the society. Now definition of this society is open to everyone's interpretation. If people are arguing that society of majority Hindu and driven by Hinduism practices then so be it. I have not affection or hatred towards any religion. I consider Indian society of those times to be deep inside respective religious influences led and believed by people who lacked rational thinking or will to come out of it. It is embarrassing fact that even with so much of intellectual heritage of ancient age, subcontinent needed outsiders to formulate governance system & law of land in order to direct machinery towards obvious growth.

 

[tramp]

Women are no longer oppressed in Western Christian countries. The point is that Christians reformed their society, while Hindus did not.

Christians did not reform themselves if you know your history, dear friend. The Church was against change and Vatican has presided over huge massacres to preserve status quo. It is the forces of Renaissance that brought in the change. The Church has also sided with oppressors and ruling elite all through history ... Remember Holocaust had the Church's tacit nod, remember Spanish Inquisitions, the Pope supported the atrocities of Gen Franco and elsewhere in the New World extermination of indigenous people. So, Vatican has no right to be climb on a pedestal. If you look at history, you will understand that if the Church had its way it would have smothered free thought and change. But the Church always had a way of coming around later and claiming to have fathered what it fought all through in the initial periods. What else do you expect from the priests of Rome who crucified Jesus and when his popularity grew stole its leadership. Was it not subterfuge on an epic scale?

 

[civfanatic]

Christians did not reform themselves if you know your history, dear friend.

Yes, they did. The Renaissance was initiated by Christians. The Reformation was initiated by Christians. The secularization of the Church, the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment were initiated by Christians. If Christians did not reform themselves, then who reformed them?