Sanitising Hindu History is not enough

[MAYURA]

Foreign invasions definitely had an impact on the Indian society. The taxes during the reign
of the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire increased compared to ancient and early medieval period.
During ancient and early medieval period the taxes ranged from 1/10 to 1/5 on the other hand the
tax rate during the Delhi Sultanate period was 30% - 50% and the non-muslims also had to pay the jizya Tax.
During the reign of Akbar the people had to pay 1/3 of the income. But I will give credit to Akbar that he
at least abolished the jizya tax.

Do not talk about taxes as our learned " historians" would tell us that increased commercial activity in mughal times nullified the impact and brought people in contact with rest of world.

 

[parijataka]

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.

Basavehswara

Basava (Kannada: ಬಸವ) (also known as Bhakti Bhandari Basavanna (Kannada: ಭಕ್ತಿ ಭಂಡಾರಿ ಬಸವಣ್ಣ ) or Basaveshwara (Kannada: ಬಸವೇಶ್ವರ), (1134–1196)) was an Indian philosopher, Statesman and a social reformer from what is now Karnataka, India. Basava fought against the practice of the caste system, which discriminated against people based on their birth, and other rituals in Hinduism. He spread social awareness through his poetry, popularly known as Vachanaas. Basavanna used Ishtalinga, an image of the Åšiva Liá¹…ga, to eradicate untouchability, to establish equality among all human beings and as a means to attain spiritual enlightenment. These were rational and progressive social thoughts in the twelfth century. Basaveshwara is recognised by some as a pioneer of Indian Democracy. He created a model Parliament called the " Anubhava Mantapa," which not only gave equal proportion to men and women, but also had representatives from different socioeconomic backgrounds. He was a man ahead of his time, who believed that conflicts in a society should be resolved by debate and not violence. He advocated mercy towards both humans and animals.

It is believed that Lord Basava was born into a Shaiva Brahmin family called madarasa and Madalambike family, residing in a small town, Basavana Bagewadi in Bijapur district of northern Karnataka state, India in 1134 AD. Basava, said to have grown up in an orthodox Hindu religious household and rejected many practices in Vedic society based on some of the religious Scriptures called Agamas, Shastras, and Puranas in Sanskrit language.

 

[Virendra]

Hindus did conquer, Shivaji being an example. What we did not have the balls to do is to wipe out Islam/Christianity from our territories like what Spain did. I blame our passive Dharmic philosophy for that and our continuous inability to learn from history.

I think the balls were there. The strategic thought and awareness of the bigger picture was missing.
Consider this, Mahmud had a fully fledged Secret Intelligence department called 'Diwani-i-Shaghul-i-Ashraf-i-Mamlukat'.
The Department employed both, men and women as spies who traveled in disguise collecting vital secret information for their Sultan."
What did we have in contrast? There were no proper Spy Departments. There was no outward spying or scouting to understand foreign areas geography, society, weaknesses etc.
That is exactly what invaders like Mahmud did. There should be no surprise that they succeeded in looting and terrorizing.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[parijataka]

Does not answer question, why Hindus could not reform or progress when europeans did ?
Why they needed British to put ban on Sati?

Just to clarify.

Sati is a word nowhere mentioned in our holy books, including the Manu Smriti. There is however something called anugamana by which a person may follow a deeply loved one in death not necessarily a husband.

Sati was practised in Rajajasthan especially in war time as `Jauhar` when defeat and dishonour in the form of slavery was a certainty. Also by wives of kings. After the death of the Vijayanagara King a Portuguese traveller (forget the name) describes how his wives sat on his funeral pyre. Sati was also practised by Bengali upper castes because of their following Dāyabhāga Hindu law by which the widow inherited husband's property. I consider this a Bengali version of dowry death - getting rid of the woman in order to get at her wealth.

Babasaheb Ambedkar wrote in one of his books that Hindus ill treat their women but it is not written down in their holy books whereas in the case of Islam the second class status accorded to women is proscribed by religion.

 

[MAYURA]

Sati was practised in Rajajasthan especially in war time as `Jauhar` when defeat and dishonour in the form of slavery was a certainty. Also by wives of kings.

It was practiced all over india with earliest reference in epigraphy dated to 510 ad in eran, madhya pradesh

 

[Virendra]

Just to clarify.

Sati is a word nowhere mentioned in our holy books, including the Manu Smriti. There is however something called anugamana by which a person may follow a deeply loved one in death not necessarily a husband.

Sati was practised in Rajajasthan especially in war time as `Jauhar` when defeat and dishonour in the form of slavery was a certainty. Also by wives of kings. After the death of the Vijayanagara King a Portuguese traveller (forget the name) describes how his wives sat on his funeral pyre. Sati was also practised by Bengali upper castes because of their following Dāyabhāga Hindu law by which the widow inherited husband's property. I consider this a Bengali version of dowry death - getting rid of the woman in order to get at her wealth.

Babasaheb Ambedkar wrote in one of his books that Hindus ill treat their women but it is not written down in their holy books whereas in the case of Islam the second class status accorded to women is proscribed by religion.

Sangala of Alexander's times also witnessed Sati/Jauhar. It was the Kathaians who did it.
"'Men and women among them chose their own partners, and the women burnt themselves along with their deceased husbands."
Source - 'Ancient History of India' by R S Tripathi

 

[Das ka das]

His comment was with limited timeframe. Adi shankara came only in 8th century and that too from north( no brahmins in kerala in significant numbers before 600ad) so you can not use him as any proof of kerala being not intellectual backwater.


Again, the astronomers are from period post 1300 ad which fits in well with Das ka Das theory that kerala was a backward fish catching region which needed upliftment from north indian brahmins.







This is stupidity at its height as kerala is place with no architectural activity of any note in classical times. There is no city in kerala of even 30 hectares size before adi shankara .


and that stuff about romans bankrupting themselves is a lie and porn sold by dravid fanatics. we do not know what kerala got at that time but even if it got 50 percent of roman money to india that is 25 million sesterii , it could not have been anything of note to romans as the average salary to a legion soldier was 1000 sesterii meaning a force of 25,000.

a petty provincial man had that much money annually with crassus having 200 million himself. You can fool others by appeal to history who in their blind hatred for brahmans also sell porn in varying degree of sophistication but you can fool me who has done his homework.


Romans bankrupting themselves with 25 million sesterii ? India too will banrupt itself with my trip.

nonsense.

I want our anti brahmin members like @civfanatic and @Iamanidiot to tell me one intellectual in Kerala who was NOT a Namboodiri. Thanks

 

[MAYURA]

Sangala of Alexander's times also witnessed Sati/Jauhar. It was the Kathaians who did it.
"'Men and women among them chose their own partners, and the women burnt themselves along with their deceased husbands."
Source - 'Ancient History of India' by R S Tripathi

The earliest reference to sati is by Didorous who describes that in 330 bc an indian army commander serving in iranian army was killed and his widow decided to immolate.

greeks tried to stop her but to no avail and he tells us that that lady did not " Nirbalta pradarsita" when flames appeared.

 

[MAYURA]

I want our anti brahmin members like @civfanatic and @Iamanidiot to tell me one intellectual in Kerala who was NOT a Namboodiri. Thanks

Never mind bhaiyya as lamanidiot thinks YSR reddy is more useful to nation than VK Saraswat the man responsible for Agni5.

 

[TrueSpirit]

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.

Agreed...

But, neither is our history meant for self-deprecation, self-flagellation, being embarrassed about & finding only faults with it.

If there was some glory in the past, that scholars world over admit to, why shy of acknowledging that & taking pride in that?

This somewhat patronizing attitude regarding our history sounds Maxmuller-ish.

Don't get me wrong. The West is economically/militarily dominant & has a better HDI. That is the only reason it is respected today. With better governance, growing awareness, pro-activeness & lesser complacency among the informed Indian citizenry & friendly business environment, we would get there, eventually (where the sermonizing moral guardians today are).

We are a resurgent India that believes in less introspection & more action (in their respective domains) :thumb:

 

[tramp]

Agreed...

But, neither is our history meant for self-deprecation, self-flagellation, being embarrassed about & finding only faults with it.

If there was some glory in the past, that scholars world over admit to, why shy of acknowledging that & taking pride in that?

This somewhat patronizing attitude regarding our history sounds Maxmuller-ish.

Don't get me wrong. The West is economically/militarily dominant & has a better HDI. That is the only reason it is respected today. With better governance, growing awareness, pro-activeness & lesser complacency among the informed Indian citizenry & friendly business environment, we would get there, eventually (where the sermonizing moral guardians today are).

We are a resurgent India that believes in less introspection & more action (in their respective domains) :thumb:

Looking back and understanding history is all right.

But there is concern when in glorifying "achievements" of the past, attempt is made when the whole lot of past exploitation and subjugation within Indian societies is sought to be brushed under the carpet like they never occurred. It also sparks off fears that the same exploitative social conditions are sought to be brought back in one way or the other. It is the same sections who had everything going in their favour for centuries to the detriment of others who seek to mask the warts and buff the rosy patches.

Let us accept both and learn and move forward, armoured by our Constitution.

No system that ties down the human genius in the came of caste or colour can help a nation achieve its full potential because the creative prowess of any nation is a reflection of the creativity of individuals.

Human genetics is such that sparks of brilliance appear in totally unexpected territories... like an Ambedkar, or an Abdul Kalam. And a system that snuffs out the flames in the name of birth in a wrong caste will only hinder the nations march forward. That, according to me, must have been what ailed India for several centuries in spite of the headstart it had in terms of early human settlements.

 

[TrueSpirit]

That's exactly my point.

Nothing wrong in acknowledging & celebrating our past glory. Take pride in it & inspire yourself to do better. No Indian, I repeat, no Indian has to be ashamed of it because it is past, not present. Consider the positives, shun the negatives.

Let bygones be bygones. We are what we are. Own it, accept it & be done with it. Till that, sounds great.

But then, take a breather. Why not take a step back & loosen up a little bit on the history part because on the ground, things are quite different.

Vote-bank politics, politicization of crime & politics of retribution is the order of the day in almost all states. In the guise of social justice (avenging past wrongs by committing similar wrongs), our politics is dividing us further. Settling scores by practicing neo-modern form of caste-ism (any form of discrimination prevalent today) & class-wars would not do us any good.

Now, the deeper we delve into past, more we run the risk of uncovering skeletons that can possibly mar any prospects of a forward-looking, development-oriented polity by vitiating the atmosphere.

So, lets propagate & celebrate the spirit of the true "Indian-ness" that is all for meritocracy & development.

All other identities (class, caste, religion, region etc.) should be subservient to the" Indian" identity. Only then is there only hope for India.

Looking back and understanding history is all right.

But there is concern when in glorifying "achievements" of the past, attempt is made when the whole lot of past exploitation and subjugation within Indian societies is sought to be brushed under the carpet like they never occurred. It also sparks off fears that the same exploitative social conditions are sought to be brought back in one way or the other. It is the same sections who had everything going in their favour for centuries to the detriment of others who seek to mask the warts and buff the rosy patches.

Let us accept both and learn and move forward, armoured by our Constitution.

No system that ties down the human genius in the came of caste or colour can help a nation achieve its full potential because the creative prowess of any nation is a reflection of the creativity of individuals.

Human genetics is such that sparks of brilliance appear in totally unexpected territories... like an Ambedkar, or an Abdul Kalam. And a system that snuffs out the flames in the name of birth in a wrong caste will only hinder the nations march forward. That, according to me, must have been what ailed India for several centuries in spite of the headstart it had in terms of early human settlements.